"There is no
known natural law
through which matter can give rise to information,
neither is any physical process
or material phenomenon known
that can do this."
W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER TWENTY ONE
MAINLAND MOUNTAINS
which some at times imagine to be on an island
Let us first consider ...
CREATION
I
The lavish fantasy of imagining that one day, but before time, then one time, but again, before time, well then, once - but that implies time: forget it, it is certainly difficult to begin without time and then time things. Only God precedes the patient peculiarities of time that proceeds in its own way, giving it meaning and scope.
Let's try again, even to formulate the fantasy of organic evolution, so that the refreshing candour of the fact of creation may appear the more clearly. We shall now, paragraph by paragraph engage in an imaginary conversation between two parties.
When there was nothing, something happened ? Can I put it that way ?
No, not really. NOTHING CAN HAPPEN when ALL is nothing. It is a simple antilogy, into which naturalism always lapses, because it is running a race without runners or a track. What has a future is not nothing, but something with potential. Nothing CANNOT DO ANYTHING. If it could, at once it was an event nexus, a power exponent. That is so far from nothing that one can have nothing to do with it in any rational model of explanation of the origin of anything.
Try a third time.
All right, I will. When there was something, something happened...
This is far better. What then was the something ?
Oh, er, nothing, really, it was just a nexus of movement, or a framework for action.
Really ? But this is not at all nothing! and the something that it is involves space, in which to move, a structure for movement to be eventful (or even eventive, to invent a term), and the power to move. This implies force, structure and time, for movement is slow or fast, and relates to time. SO space and time and structure and force are all present. From where did they come ?
Oh, nowhere much. Any improvement on that ? Oh well, I guess there were around.
Really ? Around what ?
Guess they happened to be there, just happened.
You mean that ? JUST to happen requires all the preceding structure to be there WITHOUT CAUSE. You are denying that they were summoned into being, caused in a matter of interface or interfaces between possibility and actuality, the latter acting on the former. Where did the actuality come from, and how did the possibilities arise, which are really amplitudes for action which are in a cause-effect relationship so that the actuality can act with results.
Where did this structure, cause-effect relationship and time, space and potential come from ? The fairies!
Oh no! I do not believe in fairies.
Glad to hear it. I wish your thoughts on that point were more realised by organic evolutionists. From spiritual gurus then, perhaps ?
Not that. Rather just say that they had no cause and were always there.
You wish to be rational ?
I suppose so. After all, I would like to defend what I hold, and you can't do it just by hitting somebody, or passing a law, though many evolutionists do the latter, and hit unprotected students in many cases, in thousands of class-rooms with dogma which is neither defensible nor rational, BY LAW and decree, decision or determination, paid by the tax-payer or the party.
Reasonable then ? Then where causality does not exist, as a sponsor for the elaborate apparatus with which you wish to begin your case, but yet exists IN this elaborate apparatus, we need a ground of its 'arising' there -- that is the term our old Chemistry teacher used mercilessly to lampoon, when poor students guessed their way into a display of open ignorance. The cause of this causality, this processive interface of action and reaction, movement and result, the logic of event specifics in entry and outcome ? You would like to specify, rationally ?
I had not really thought about that.
It involves, you see, logical system and conceptual relevance, as well as space and time and structure and potential. You feel that scientifically, you just have 1) nothing and then 2) this elaborate structure or something like it without causality causing it, because it is not around as yet and then 3) causality in it, because it 'arises'. Is that it ? Or do you wish to avoid the first point 1) nothing ?
You have already shown that this is irrational.
So you want 2) just to BE, but 3) to come later, from nowhere, with no cause (since it IS cause, it CANNOT come from any cause, for this would be using it before it 'arises').
No, I don't want that. It won't work.
Good, then you want causation as well as structure and potential and space and time, and interfaces fit for action and reaction, or response, to be all nice and spin-dry as it were, sitting there for no reason, and for no cause.
Not really. It seems just too ridiculous to call that science. It is magic, machination of thought proceeding naked into the wintry winds of events where its pretensions do not mix with empirical realities. It is a series of question begging humbugs.
Correct. Suppose then we provide a cause for temporal causality (the kind we have, in which, in a given time, things happen in a system with structure and inter-face coherence and causality). We will need something not-natural to induce this to exist, since nothing cannot, and a shrug of the shoulders is not science or reason for that matter.
Good. Let's have one of those.
Excellent. Do I detect a trace of irony in your capitulation ?
Possibly. It seems too ridiculous to spend years being educated about what cannot possibly be.
It does, agreed. This is the biblical analysis fulfilled, that there is an alienation of life from God, which brings out irrationality as a result. You see that in Ephesians 4:17-19 and Romans 1:17ff. for example, and a display of it in practical terms in Isaiah 1 and 59; and in the newspapers.
Well then we must start with the not-natural.
True, and since it must be enough to institute the natural, we may call it the super-natural. After all, it is indefeasibly derivative.
Yes, let's. We are now becoming specialised and specific in our thought, which is a giant improvement.
This supernatural has to have all it takes to provide time and space and causality of our temporal kind and laws and their interspersed condition, so that they can move each in its sphere and in its dimensional reality. This takes cogitation, for these things do not happen without a cause, except in the mind of man, where myth (fancifully inadequate cause for prescribed results), magic or self-contradiction obtains.
Why do you say 'self-contradiction' ?
Imagine trying to DEFEND a case WITH reason, and so giving causes for its presence and in order to sustain it, and then denying that causality is to the point in itself! That is why.
Of course, that is why it is off course.
This matter is delivered in more detail in Causes 1, SMR Chs. 3 and 5, and within Predestination and Freewill 4. However events without cause is merely another name for imagination without control, and the demolition of characteristics, which betoken a cause and and effect relationship in time between a principle or position and a result. That leads you back to nothing, which is without characteristics, and may be defined as a concept connoting that in which no characteristics of any kind may be found.
Come to think of it, the institution of this event-reality, this cause-effect contiguity is something that also takes power, since whatever thought may do, and however brilliantly, it has yet to provide for itself as sponsor, a palette and colour, to use artistic terms, and a design. Whatever we may think of characteristics which inhere in, exhibit the nature of and are worked from adequate cause in something, they are there, integral to create the totality of what the entire thing is - whether a world or a quark, they have to be caused in each phase of integrality, reality and operational functionality. This is a result demanding a cause effective, relevant, active in the ambit of the result desired, and hence possessed of all that the effect incorporates, implicates and exhibits.
It has to provide articulation of concepts and fabrication of thought, inducing all the features of our material universe to exist in their multi-quantum originalities, and mini-movement actualities.
That is the case. It does not HAVE to, in the sense that it is forced to do this; but since we HAVE what is here, and are examining what is the minimal condition to bring it here, we are simply explaining that if this did not happen, we would not be talking.
It is so, and I WANT to call it creation. I am so weary of having this word made the victim of some apparatchic, some derelict bureaucrat, practising his or her ideological apartheid in the name of that alien lord, secular culture, or that other, diseased religion that is subservient to its secular boss. They call the shots, and make a sort of agenda to smoke the marijuana of illusion, permitting nothing of debate in class, or tilting everything so that conformity becomes intelligence, and bowing to the sacred cow becomes the lot not of students, but of cattle. Kids into cattle! and that is education ? I think not.
I am delighted to see you so perceptive.
I am suffered years of it. Creation at last, out of its verbal prison and freely discussed in logical style! That, it is a lovely sound to the ear, and a beautiful music to the mind, to have rationality at last enabled to speak without suppression, distortion or irrelevance being bound on it.
I pity you, and acknowledge that even some private or 'religious' schools are with inhuman pitilessness folding in the embrace of the pseudo-papal forces of secularism, and so teaching the purest nonsense, mixed with various religious thoughts rendered irrelevant by the admissions department of the models they present.
So we have this kind of thing, atoms of this kind, and people of that kind, and creatures of this kind, and causality of the other kind, and space and time of this kind, and no sustained evidence of any movement from one kind to another in logic, in causality, in system or in requirements for any and every action. It is not that the determinist is right, but that the irrational is wrong.
You excel yourself. How much more fun to work things out in the way we work in income tax, or mathematics, rather than believing on the empty dogmas of irrationalism as normally now either taught or implied. Oh yes, they may allow for some sort of religion, so long as the irrational is the actual theory employed.
Do-nothing gods, extraneous watchers of the magic of creation: it is a tomb for teaching, and many are its inhabitants.
I can see that you have suffered long, and are beginning to enjoy your release. When we SEE the structure and kind of things in their internalities change without a doubt, and that from internal novelties self-invented, and observe them display, to the observer, the workings of the inner being which produces this causatively, then we try to explain this. We don't so we don't.
You mean you don't see it so in proper scientific method, you do not explain it ?
Yes, that is why hundreds of Ph.D. scientists, IN bio-science, having escaped the chatter and patter, show the realities of empirical evidence and despise the irrational options which rule from social duress.
What then do we see ?
We see that creation is not interested in myths but machination, reality, interface and adequate causation, both in argument and in practicality. WE create continually, and its very essence is causative. This simply requires the causation to be so advanced that it is able to make those who in limited but dazzling ways, using the systematics already there, can create.
You mean that we are given tools, minds and materials, imagination and conceptual coherence, combination with concepts buried implicitly in the creation, and being creative, in the creation we create, being in the image of the Creator of all, imagination, correlation, time, space, mind, spirit and creativity ?
Precisely; for we ARE imaginative by NATURE, and every time something with its own code of information, conceptualisation, innovation and actualisation occurs, we recognise it in a human being as creativity. This is not chance, the mere name for what works in its own system without interference, but creation, what invades system with understanding and using it with artifice, deploys it with determination and enjoys its products with admiration. It is human beings who are thus to an almost inordinate degree. We ARE creative. That is one of our distinctives. The creation of creators, mini-creators is just one of the causative necessities when you consider what is there. Creating what creates like that is naturally a feat beyond man, since he is the product of it.
What enormous data banks, what extravagant ingenuity, is this, to create what incorporates genuine creativity! What else do you see ?
We see information theory saying that outside intelligence there is no new information which guides itself into existence, because there is the lapse law.
What is that ?
Information tends to decrease. You require what is adequate to invent information, and this is not inaction or non-enterprise. WE invent it. In its natural circumstances, without purposeful intervention, its way is to decrease. It is not just that your tax files do not amend and improve themselves in order or cohesion or conceptual understanding, or that your poetry does not gain increments in felicity by itself. They all contain information and this will grow if we act creatively, or go or remain static, unlike the paper or surface of its storing over time, which in the end tends to disperse the information as it ages. The case is that information is a correlative to specific creation; and its end without such activity is decrement, not increment. Elements of adversity can displace, disintegrate, invade, erode, interfere with the information in its neat abstract coding; this does not help its overall plan, purpose, cohesion for creativity, or endowments for its unity as a creation.
That is obvious, isn't it. I was reading your Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4, and was impressed to see a world expert on information science, Professor Werner Gitt of the German Federal Institute of Physics, where he is Head of the Department of Information Science, say this:
|
|
"There is no
known natural law |
It is true. In fact, there is a most interesting site which speaks concerning him and these areas of time and origins, science and religion, at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/gitt.asp
That should be interesting. What can we say about this aspect here ?
Concepts do not conceive themselves. If they could, they would not BE concepts, but concept-producers, a very different thing, just as cars are not car manufacturers, and in general, what creates is not what is created.
It is this fundamental distinction and disjunction which St Paul makes so clear in Romans 1:17ff., isn't it ?
Yes, the apostle declares that people having not desired the knowledge of God, though it was there for them to see and it was clearly known, they then became foolish, without excuse. He declares their case in this way: they failed because
"they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful,
but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image ..."
I suppose you can have virtual images and actual ones ?
Yes indeed. In fact, Ezekiel 14 speaks of having idols in the HEART, so that it is an invisible substitute for the invisible God, though often it is seen only some external thing, like matter or some module or conception of it. In essence, the evil image however is not material - this is merely an example. It is simply a substitute created by man with his own limited by effervescent creativity, as a substitute for god. Gods made by man are a convenience tool, enabling man to think what he will, do what he will, inflict pain as he will and in general play the goat with godliness. The result is vying and suspicion, mesmerism and submission, aggressiveness without commission, delusion, confusion in profusion and the cynicism of the afflicted, melded with the militancy of the bemused.
It is not a pretty picture: rather like endless virus invasions for the body; but it has a defence system of no mean ability, be multiply diverse and co-orindated with magnificently conserved information which runs it.
Yes, and it has religious outcomes as well. It is given the effectual and practical 'worship' which is due to the One who has the power to do the things which mere matter does not, because it cannot, so that it is never seen so to act. This is noted in SMR pp. 80ff., for example, and developed in Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 1 with Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 3.
Yes, I found it good to traverse those two in a unified exercise, to examine the bases of the matter.
We come then to the Creator and realise how Gould is
so horrified by the Cambrian results
(noted in Wake Up World!
Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6! with the lead
in of Ch. 5)! As a method of gaining the matrix of
designs (you have to invent a new meaning for the term if you wish to speak of
the Cambrian affair, as Gould does, objectively, and don't use it, which he
however does!), evolution is dangerous. It makes you laugh almost to split your
sides. It is telling us how to get slowly what Gould, in the very grip of
geological theory so popular, assigns to quick beginnings, followed by
thickness, by miserable littleness, variation about themes, and not the grand
prodigy of originality which he so clearly and emphatically describes and
connotes.
Yes, it is hilarious, the contortions he goes into as he faces the deleterious reality: evolutionary theory has been describing an impossible nonsense of integrality works of massive interaction within, as gradual and being changed by chance, while designs of prodigious orginality and scope, with sub-types in abundance, are said in the Burgess Cambrian to be there in a splash. What contortion to make slowness equal speed, gradual equal sudden, a comparatively sudden flash and splash of creative power equal sodden impulse in tiny steps without goverance or guidance! What inversion, as Gould puts it, to have the cone of variety IMAGINED, turned upside down to attest what he deems to be the facts, the proliferation at the outset, and the narrowing of design type as time goes on. The KIND concept moreover is strong: the variation on an original theme is precisely what Gould is stressing. The originality came first. The part that remains is a small part of the original.
Fancy explaining the opposite of the case by a theory! So this is science!
Of course not. It is part of a course on what is NOT SCIENCE. In fact, this is precisely what I was teaching in a tertiary Adelaide institution as a "Lecturer", when the course was stopped. No more could anything of counter-culture be presented. But, said I, you already teach evolutionary concepts; it is time fidelity is given its option and reason its place. After all, a university is supposed to be a place where truth has go and flow, and criticism has scope. It is not convenient was the sonorous reply. Truth is inconvenient. They found that with Christ.
What I detest is the practice of some 'churches' which swallow the bait and follow into the land of myths and dreams, explaining what is not there, and failing to explain the features of what IS there.
I guess I always knew in a sense, that this was the way of it, but the endless din on radio and TV and the cliquish culture sermons in almost every presentation in the field of nature are such a nature-bashing propaganda feat, an emporium of evolution, that there was scarcely ever time or opportunity to THINK! Evolution bashing is worse than AIDS. It is weakening a whole generation, alluring it into degeneration with morbidity, selfishness, unrealism, low standards and me-first itis, in the interest of a survival of rats and brats, as to the trend, which scarcely helps where violence has new means of making all suffer.
There is, in the evidence, an attestation of several pointed facts. First, there is a scope for variation about a kind concept, as divinely created LIFE has within it marvellous adaptive powers and reactive codes and concepts, productive procedures inherent in its design (as shown in Life, What is it ?). As often in our own products, which are lesser but not less rational, there is an option in response to various impacts and forces which is not the same as a design engineer re-casting and inventing the whole thing, or providing it with what is far harder, an alternative programmatics. This has to engage harmoniously and consistently with the original, so that while conserving the genius wrought in it (for that is the level of action in living things, in their construction and self-begettings), it yet blends nicely and does all that hard stuff which might send a hundred engineers frantic, if asked to do it. Straight creation is easier than any such meddlesome complexities. The easier course is the one then, that appears.
Deposition of DNA and expression of creativity by such means as this have the magnificent ornament that brilliance begets but also conserves the creation: it is like a limited use of the waste-paper basket. In fact the editorial processes now found to be working so astutely in cells, to conserve kind, are merely another part of the kind-concept.
It's kind of nice to see the consistency in method and machination, result and actualisation. It fits like the teeth of a saw into the wood it grinds.
I always remember Denton's saw: Discontinuity is what is found in nature. For continuity, the progressive institution of all from each, you find this only in the mind of man. I'll return to that.
Evolutionary myth loves to imagine what nature 'needed' to do, and ignoring the power needed to provide it, have it act in terms of their own estimation of what might be nice IF you were to go from the nothing concept, partial or total, to the actualities we have. It is not only governance by guess-work but the obituary of mind, no longer needed in theory, for the prodigies of power which so far surpass our own minds' works, that they become almost the fumbling stumbling of a child.
Is it the Oedipus Complex of Freud, at last given place, with God the father to die, because the arrant son has no place for him, and mother nature is the goal of the dissident son!
Of course, they often just TAKE what is THERE, and ignoring its genesis, act as if moving it around by hand does amazing things. No doubt it would do amazing things if you took the motor at the end of a motor boat and placed it backwards at the front; but this is play, not work. If it is hard, it is hardly invention, just manipulation.
True. So we have conditional mutability within kind, a species of endurance provision, and then you have the kind within which this occurs, a species of fixity. Evolutionists love to extrapolate, but actually the information does not 'arise' and the concepts and laws and integration of correlations with the originals do not 'arrive'. It is never seen; it is never provided for; its means do not appear, not do their results arrive any more than the grounds for it are found.
Evolutionary theory ? It is an exercise in nullity as to substance, nullity as to method, nullity as to evidence and nullity as to reason. It is also against all laws of science based on scientific method.
Yes, THAT method by its very nature proceeds from observation to verification of hypothesis to account for it, and then endurance intact past opportunities for anti-verification, while it picks up nicely with surrounding verified concepts, and forms one rational nicety of self-confirming, conceptual interfaces.
Here, what is NOT found becomes something to ACCOUNT FOR, a thing quite naturally so distressing Gould in "Wonderful Life"
Yes, for all his subsequent dither, having a universe in which you do not really need survival for its institution (it was always a slide from continuation to creation cf. SMR pp. 132ff.), and where things can go anywhere, it is simple capitulation with a red flag by mistake! That is where he was left logically. It was like a padded cell performance; for poor Gould, for all his observational skill, built for himself a container unit. Things had to 'go' but there was nothing to ensure that they 'went'! 'Punctuation' as in his punctuated equilibrium was quite simply the full stop. He stopped very decisively imagining the 'necessity' that only question begging could sanction, and this by its nature, only with invalidity. In that he was so very right.
Thus you find numbers of creatures, such as the Coelanth, which do not change over a large percentage of the earth's known history, some shown in Question and Answer 3. Professor Michael Denton, s I was noting, is found declaring after a most thorough investigation (in his Evolution: A theory in Crisis) that continuity (as distinct from discontinuous arrivals in life) exists ONLY in the mind of man!
I am glad you saw that. Yes, Gould, the arch-famous Harvard Professor renowned in the last century, for his part has his frank admission. It is noted in Evolution Now: A Century after Darwin: Ed. John Maynard Smith).
 |
" The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages |
Imagine calling that science which has the persistent 'problem' that what is
required is what is absent, and what creation requires is what alone conforms to
evidence!
Yes indeed. You can see how this mode of arousal was caused in Gould. In Wonderful Life, pp. 260, 230 and 227, he produces an anguished cry that quivers into tremolo. The concept of ordered motion through developing designs is laughable, he cries (260), simple precursors moving smoothly to improved descendants is not just unacceptable, he declares: it is literally incomprehensible. He was speaking as evidentially attuned, and so had a violent collision with theories of the mind, which lacked everything but audacity.
Such ideas should "never even arise for consideration," he asserts. That is a just statement and scientifically apt. "I just can't accept," he divulges, "that if organisms always have the potential for diversification of this kind - while only the odd ecology of the Lower Cambrian ever permitted its realization - never, not even once, has a new phylum arisen since Burgess times." This is certainly scientific in sound, giving attention to evidence, means and correlative thought in relevant context.
What is not innate (Darwin) and what is not exhibited outside the earliest times as interpreted by Gould, is what is to be 'explained'! That is science in reverse, self-denigration by virtual decree; and they wonder why we object to their perennial dither and hope and empirical failure. Science, when properly so-called, does not act the bully or the bitter alienated wife or husband.
I should think not! It is supposed to FIND the evidence and then MINE a theory; not MIME a theory from imagination and then blow away evidence. If anything ever showed the alienation from God, this does! Science is only one area where its distasteful irrationality and arbitrary ignorance proceeds; the politics of 'decimation' continues all too clearly as well. Force and not fact is becoming all but endemic to the human race, in mind games and military operations!
I am delighted that your illumination grows. As to Gould, his problem is twofold. How - in heaven's name, he rightly but not reverentially asks - could such disparity have arisen so quickly! (227). Darwin in his better moments, when not drawn by unconscious mythical (that is effect without adequate cause concepts) ideas, saw something of the point also, but without the picture available to Gould. Indeed, the latter (257) cites Darwin from 1857, from a letter to Alphaeus Hyatt, to this effect: "After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists."
It would have been better if he had kept to that.
It is particularly unfortunate that Darwin sought to find something which DID do just this, when it does not observably, or in terms of any equipment rationally relevant, provide for it. He was mesmerised by desire as has been a generation or two or three since; but now that the pure folly of this question-begging belittlement of fact is exposed, as also by Løvtrup and Nilsson, not to mention Goldsmith, there is a rabble of irrationality seeking expression in oddments of alternatives which are increasingly humorous in their imaginations.
Could we say this ? How could these designs in their superlative spread have arisen so quickly, and why did so little happen thereafter of any comparable scope! There are the first and greatest questions (instead of commandments) in Gould's book.
I think so indeed. There is a third problem for his approach, and it is this: Since decimation not origination of major design is the rule of observation (departure in strength after the early phase, and not arrival in originality after that), how are we trying to explain what is not found, and proposing theories which do not show evidence of working, when the precise opposite is what is occurring.
It seems to me that it is rather like a young man proposing to various girls, and then boasting to his friends how they fell for him, when in fact, the ONLY one to whom he ever had engagement, was the first, and he did not really believe in that. It is confusion's masterpiece, despite the dither in Macbeth.
Yes, he is torn by all this. Indeed, it is something that he dramatises or singularises or at any rate illustrates in his concept of the two cones. What is presented in ordinary biology fantasy, is a cone with the developing top broader; but what is found, he asserts for the story over time, is the opposite. It is a cone inverted, with the large base of enormous design munificence, and a narrowing top! (47). The broad base is early; the narrowing top is later. We are 'explaining' how the opposite of what he attests of the evidence has occurred. Not bad that! You have to explain how your son spent a fortune in a short time, and you end up by giving, with a straight face, the causes which you imagine, for his MAKING the fortune over a long period. How assinine can you get.
Doesn't he put it rather well at one point ?
Yes, he says this ...
|
|
"The maximum range of anatomical possibilities arise with
the first flush of diversification." |
Not bad that! You get the opposite of the gradualistic theory of organic evolution, in full measure, and it can be shown in the geometrical form of inverting the facts! What they are doing is 'converting the facts,' which not being human or spiritual, still in fact stay just the same, making it an exercise in illusion, common with other magicians. As to Gould, he has no cone to create, only punctuated equilibrium, when the force of the 'writing' between the stops is what he lacks! I liked your SMR pp. 315Aff. on that.
You have been reading quite a while then ?
Oh yes. Many of us are so frustrated with over-rated, under-supported fancies, set forth with belligerent gusto, that we have been reading and considering for quite some time, before doing anything in the way of action! Now that the time has come, it is good to be at peace with the facts once more.
Yes, friendship with the facts, that is the very heading of part of SMR, in fact pp. 251ff., and 208ff..That's just the way it is. Friendship with the facts begets friendship with the explanation of them which is not only necessary, but attested, validated, verified in every way, so that the foolishness of seeking to attribute what poor old Nature cannot do, write the book, and scamp from its Author in a fit of irrational self-indulgence, is as plain as Paul makes it!
Ah the friendship with God who made facts, that's what I want.
Yes, this underlies a point. The more important point is this. Falling foul of the facts, modern man fouls for himself the fountain that issues where facts point, in the pardoning power of the Creator, whose wisdom is shown in 'nature' as in man; and whose pardoning peace is as available now as was the original DNA then, which came indeed all of a sudden. Man varies - within kind - not only physically, but mentally, emotionally, morally and spiritually.
Yes, doesn't he; but the same kind of thing applies.
Yes, you cannot escape what you are. However much you avoid it, it catches up with you like a butterfly net, however fast you fly.
I want the mercy of the Maker shown in the matrix of His mind, expressed in the endlessly verified Bible, which contains what remains, and refutes what disputes, from the Christ who epitomises the truth, and IS it!
You will find it in putting your trust in Him, in His work of redemption, His energy both to create and resurrect, in His focussed only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, begotten from the dead in the very midst of maximal motivation by empire and nation to keep Him in the tomb. You will find it where He invites, alive and alert, conquering and to come, and experience it then in His peace with mercy, which love produces. First however, repentance!!
Amen to that!
II
There is a group of special emphases next presented.
Rather than cover more chapters with them, in separate text, we have them simply joined by hyperlinks, becoming hyperlink virtual chapters.
First, for Chapter 22, we have Journey to God, or Fantasy's Flight to the Infernal Ch. 2, with Stepping out for Christ Ch. 2... Background.
Then in Chapter 23 appear Downfall from
Defamation Ch. 6 with Let God be
God Ch. 2...
Basic Concepts. Basic Orientation.
In Chapter 24, there are linked Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4, 5 and 6... Particular Issues and scientific perspective.
Chapter 25 provides Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 7, with Divine Manifesto ... Ch. 5 (Adult playground), while Chapter 26 has Let God be God Ch. 12 ... Ecclesiastical subversion.
These with further references in the text above show the magnitude and wonder of the Mountain of Creation.
For a systematic coverage of naturalism:
Use this link.