W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New


Chapter 3


So much is so consonant, consistent and harmonious in concept and perspective,
that we find in this coverage, as an appendix, the working of
the same power and the same provision that appeared in Chapter 3


The Lavish Luxury of Creative Thought

Creative Exemplars and Creation:

Love's Gift and Life's Lord




As you read from Gish's book, EVOLUTION, The Fossils Still Say NO! on the topic of birds, of amphibia, reptiles and mammals, objectively certain features appear.

Firstly, there are abrupt FACTS of this and that design, and they may include either alternate modes or combined modes or rank wonders of ingenuity; but they do not move in gradual expression, according to fossil*1A.

Secondly, there are no time allocations which rank things in this way, even granting the abrupt factor. The times also do not match, they are repeatedly too soon or too late for this or that imaginary transition, even if it did occur; and what might seem optimal nodes of this or that kind, do not in fact articulate time-wise as the theory of evolution might wish; for it is a wishful thing.

Thirdly, one is left to wonder how kinds fit into this array. At the outset one perceives this: there ARE kinds. There are not moving models going places. The moving vans uniformly do not appear, the transitional species in nice succession, or even at all!

Next, one finds that there is innovative ability that is triumphalist, that is like a brilliant artist in exuberance and grandeur, manifesting such a prodigy of designs and ways, modes and applications, that it is as if it were pure delight to invent, and that the constraints of wisdom and power were simply not there. It was unlimited and acted as such. Gould is justly impressed with this feature, as seen in his Wonderful Life! He is just as impressed with the downturn in designs, the deficit compared with allegedly earliest times, as the Cambrian, which being the opposite of the nice little idea of growth, appals him. Justly is this so.

Finally, there is apparent in all, such an intricacy of device, such a complexity to achieve simplicity, and such a fascinating mathematical and organic chemical skill as to astound. Anything around seems to be put into service, and what cannot be seen is imagined, and what on apparent bases cannot be wrought, is nevertheless put into operation, by a skill that is baulked by nothing, invents anything and rejoices on its exuberant way.

The testimony of these facts has nothing whatever to do with evolution. That theory is so far from fitting*1B any facts that it is a testimony to a combination of human obstinacy, fallacious misuse of scientific method which multiply excludes it, and the biblically portrayed desire of man in sin to avoid God, that it is even mentioned (cf. Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation).

Evolutionism is a howler. It begs to be gradual, and fails, lacking evidence and constructive method and ground; it insists on being sudden, and lacks means; it equivocates and lacks both and all.

What however is the case ? It is this. There has been a creative power co-ordinate or beyond the results at work in innovation of concept, imagination of design, specification of the most complex equations and interactions, aflame with architecture and physiological function as criteria, anatomical innovation a thrust of dominating power; and it no more tries to mould trees from stones or fowl from fish, than any great creator would be inclined to do, when bursting with brilliance and alight with innovation. It is in short, not ONLY creation, but this on the grandest scale of brilliance and  liberality. With this, however, there is one further element.

Despite this exuberant brilliance, there is no less evident a skilful discipline, since the things that DID NOT WORK, do NOT litter the littoral, or make themselves obtrusively evident in the fossil ash-can, or bin if you will. Things are made to work, and this is not experimentation, but expression. Further, the kinds as in the coelanth, instead of messing about, are found frequently continue over imagined aeons with careful concern for their 'kind'. Where the exhibits in vies incorporate this or that mode which was used in something else, as any engineer might do moving from model to model, not from object to object, they continue to do so.

Indeed, we even find unmineralised dinosaur bones from alleged millions of years ago, and blood cells, in stark contradiction of the forces of dissolution and affirmation of the limited time frame, which so much else so extravagantly attests (cf. TMR Ch. 7,   E, The Answers Book, p. 182, showing the technical reference).

There is a stark originality that is intensely and intensively intelligent.

These creations in life, they have elasticity like ours when we provide air-conditioning and so on as options; but this is within bounds of reaction on the basis of kind, not to produce new kind. It is an outrageously daring seeming sort of architectural facility, like some mansion of Gates, where you can change this or that by structural means thought of beforehand, and installed in the initial downput of the building.

It is the mental, the conceptual, the architectural, the vital which pours itself out, not the alteration as of middle age boredom, playing about with buildings.

This is the evidence, and these are the parameters that appear. It does of course mean creation, but it is far more than that. It is creative marshalling and lordship, of a vital spirit which is daring, dashing and grand, limited by nothing, but loving logic, and thrusting into material actuality, a myriad of matters from mind, in kind, that  yet is not so crushed as to be like concrete, nor so free as to be like water poured. It is a vivid vitality, and a governing power that fears nothing and invents what it will.

Such of course is precisely the biblical picture of God. They match.

Not only so, but as we see in SMR pp. 140ff., for example, and in TMR Ch. 1, scientifically and logically, there is quite stringently no other option. What appears, is what is.

How beautiful that the Lord who made man, gave to HIM ALSO, such a roving imagination and vitality, that even when he errs, as he does constantly in this nature-bashing sermon thrust of our time, on evolutionary myth, he can do so with some measure of dynamic even in his rashness. What a thing is this liberty, likewise given such flame, that when it burns, its childish errors still come with a dash of daring! Even though it moves to obscurantist oblivion, yet it flies to this ground with derring-do dash!

Yet alas, what in God is innovative splendour, for He knows all, in man is vastly different. Posing as know-all or acting as grab-all, when in fact thrust through with godless ambition like Duncan with Macbeth's dagger, this inordinate creature then exhibits mere autonomous asininity; for to mimic the lordliness of God, is mere lie. We are not that; and there are for us limits both of logic and law; yet even these, rightly used and not abused, are delicious. Like laws of the road, they not only do NOT stop excellent driving, but rather conserve it for many drivers.

The law of the Lord is perfect, delighting the eyes. Forgetting the difference between man and God is a pastime which makes playing footsies with scorpions seem remarkably sober by contrast. Put otherwise, the wages of sin is death.

It is that wonderful exuberance of divine love, that enables us to add: but the gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23).



Thus exuberant and unlimited energy is found not only in imagination, but in its application to practical affairs, and this not only in life, but also  in the immense stores in atoms, when these are treated in terms of the knowledge invested in their creation. This is seen when a few pounds of radioactive material can become base to devastate a city. Energy and law thus abound, and accessed power explodes when such materials are duly manipulated ACCORDING to law (E=MC2), in terms of format, and chemical and physical plannings inbuilt into the created forms brought into being with a precision which is appalling to the mind, since there is so much of it. Unravelled like a billionaire's bank account, when abused, these powers inform the banal mind of the power of their construction, and the energy of their Investor!

However, beyond all this, there is not merely embracive law which so justly fascinated Einstein, who dealt so nimbly with it, and began, though he did not entirely succeed, to see much of its program, pattern and spread in the visible universe; there is also one particular code ? say rather, fact that obtrudes like the nose on the face of a rather de Gaullist-crafted person.

It is a commanding fact, facet, and feature. There is the one and the many, philosophers like to assert. Like those in Athens, to whom Paul spoke (Acts 17), they often like to talk.  But let us just LOOK.

There is ONE earth, and ONE human race (racism is particularly offensive logically, because it ignores this feature and builds on dreams that have no definition  criteria). There is ONE set of laws and ONE set of objects subject to them. There is ONE creation of person, of personality and its freedom features which make it of just interest (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Little Things Ch. 5), and there is ONE domain of result. This includes a spate of emotions and responses, opportunities and imaginations, from hatred to worship, from co-operation to repudiation, from man as god competitor, to man as dunce estimate. However, the domain is one: that of persons in estimation, cogitation, imagination, realisation, desperation, contradiction and conformity, all aspects of their possible array of functions.

There is, if you will, one plateau for persons, but many persons occupy it.

There is also ONE language of LIFE, and there are many whose DNA works on its terms. There are not many languages of life; it is all one because it is of one. It did not assemble itself in phrase books and definition lectures, in interchange alternations and abstract thought denoting all things, on the part of any known creature. Man inhabits language, but he does not sit down and invent it, not the languages of nations, although of course he can invent esperanto, and junk it, or program languages, and make more; yet as to the language which expresses himself and his thought at the personal level, he has obvious power to construct, but he comes equipped, and so able that he absorbs language so well that he can take 5 from infancy, as in Europe, and 'handle' them.

Thus there is ONE language of life and there are many languages on the tongues of mankind. There are many applications of linguistic principles with the aid of preliminary programs for invention and apprehension; but there is one phenomenon of communication of heart and life, mind and spirit, observation and desire of man to man. It is its forms which are many. Its load is one.

What man has not done, is make the potential, the programmatic basis that allows thought in this domain to be effectual, the cast of mind which enables the grammatical analysis to proceed, the invention of words to occur, the reception of meaning to be gleaned, so that without language in the invisible realm, he is as much unmanned as he would be if he lost the head on his shoulders. It is part of him.

There is one stamp that activates, one language*1C that intimates, only one DNA, one individual to respond with one discursive spirit to reciprocate in man - or not; one path to invisible life to enfold the visible, one amply verified book, the Bible, to show how to enter the path, one Lord to oversee, guard, keep, from whom to enquire  in on Spirit who links Lord to life, one challenge to one way to many persons, nations, cities, empires, regimes, one world to answer, and ultimately to be dismissed, one eternal life with and through one Saviour, who sent not a card but a corpse, a sacrificial offering, for men to see its resurrection beyond all hate, ill-will and slaughter, that one opportunity should be given to al.

Such is not the one and the many, the usual confuse philosophic phrase - but the One and the many, from whom they have come, to whom answered - with whom they can live in His inventive and eternal life, or from whom opt to become black stumps: black with sin and cut off from fulfilment. Ignoring the causal necessities is merely decoding not the code's meaning, but existence (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7).

Again, there is ONE realm of imagination and there are many who use it. This particular item is more than MERE item: for it is crucial. You see this both in literary and musical works, for example. Thus, take Mendelssohn's Mid-Summer Night's Dream. There the resurgent tides of creative felicity move and fall, rise and depart, while birds of melody skip over the abundant waters of depth, and thrusts of pure aesthetic mastery mingle with gusts of invited exuberance, notes mingling with dreams, and dreams with vitality as imagination plays like spray on the sides of some great liner as it passes, and the thrill of a certain felicitous majesty arrives even in the heart of the play which he interprets.

Bach shows the same splendid conception and originative control, while energy abounds in form, and form  yields to grace (cf. his Toccata and Fugue, News 85), and this to the vision of majesty and splendour in the Lord; nor is there absent in Stainer's Crucifixion just such a creative delight in the exhibition of glory in the acme of wonder and work, seen in its purposeful thrust and divine dynamic in the crucifixion itself. Handelís impassioned zeal and translation of vision into word and the movement of history, in the Messiah, crafted about Christ, wise in industry, biblical in fidelity, grand in design and delicate in vignettes and tableaux, manifests the fashioning of imagination about an object, here the subject, Jesus Christ, with stark intensity and musical imagination that continues to draw the spirits of mankind,  year by year, to share the glory of a creative masterpiece, this time about the Creator, manifesting the Redeemer, painting with musical colours that make music almost visual, whilst choirs display in voice a symphony of musical enterprise, fashioned in finesse, exultant in exuberant communication.

There is in man an exuberant deliciousness, which when joined with a recognition of the splendour which originated him, and its arising like the sun at dawn, on his benighted soul, can make toil a triumph and the mundane a mere screen through which appears significance shown in artistic designs, architectural marvels, literary prodigies and musical waterfalls of energy and awakenings of delight. Things come in designs which designate, forms which function, artifices which abound, new volumes, new paintings, new building, perhaps like some others, but soaring like a bird to what is beyond mere development, into articulations of the realms to which man can have access, whether more or less directly.

The pettifogging meanders into adjustments, like screws renewed or replaced, is of an entirely different order to the manifest properties of creativity; and it is as vain to try to make of Mendelssohn's works,  some creeping adjustment of some one original, as to do the same with family members, however much they may have in common, for there is that distinctiveness of mind, vision and form, indeed of energy and understanding, of message and declaration, depending on the case, which makes of gradual change an abortion of fact and an assault on truth.

What is true in realms of creativity in products that adorn the earth with astonishing creativity and panache, is true vastly more in the brilliance, intellectual enterprise and magnificence of conception, that is found in the works that do not come from MAN, but for him, and with him.

In both, but at vastly different levels, there is understanding: in man, often misunderstanding, yet still the faculty is active in enterprise and if soused by spiritual moribundity in features relating to God and often to justice, equity and brotherly love as well, it is so no less attestation of the realm of understanding. In the absence of bitsas, biting into new categories, as so often attested and by few more vigorously than Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionist without ground), with feathers on the way, and organs in transition, we realise that where total power is lodged with unrestricted understanding, there is neither place for them in transitions, nor need, nor indeed would they work.

That is one reason they are not there.

It is indeed integral to the whole reality of categories of creation, that they vary WITHIN their prodigies of invention, but in making these, there is a distinctiveness like the rising of the sun over the darkened earth. When it is, it is not something else; and when it has arrived, it is very much not the moon, the sun or some other distinctive astronomical feature. However within itself, it moves this way and that, has this magnetic storm or filament or that; but proceeds on its path. Imagination is like that, in man, coming to focus before construction at his best; and his derivation is not drab. In the prodigies of God's creation one finds what is splendid in conception, marvellous in scope and visionary in style. One also finds the banal, as evidence of the curse of  Genesis 3, Romans 8:18ff., like dust sprinkled on a gorgeous cream cake, with bits of lava instead of toffee. It is ALL contrived, conceptualised and marvellous in conception; but the two strands are contrary, the one to the other, just as man is contrary to God, and to His word.

In this collision, there is the curse. In God's mercy, there is the word of God, the Bible. In that there is the prescription for deliverance from the curse. ALL, all is conceptually magnificent, whether to make or to condemn, to commend or to deliver; and all fits like the very entities which God creates, but in this case, in the three dimensions, creation,  curse of God and word of God, its cure, and man's rest.

Inside this construction and scenario, there is man, imaged to be able to imagine, and in imagining. able to create virtual images, often not virtuous, but then that is the facility of creativity and liberty, the obverse of love.

If man could not imagine, then he would not be free. If he could not conceive what he is not, and the world is not, and what life is not, and what logic is not, then he would be an object at work; and not a person. The distinctly delectable part of persons is their power to conceive aright, and if need be, wrongly; to act with understanding, but if lacking, without it; to see what to love, or if lacking, then have distaste; to realise the value of others, or reject it, if defective, or the others are so; to find a standard, and apply it, whether to priorities, to values, to understanding or to life. It is their non-programmatic side of which creativity is one attestation,  which is their glory, subject to only one thing (cf. Ch. 2 above, Spiritual Refreshings Ch.  9, incl. End-note 1 (esp. programmatic psychology and its ilk), Marvels of Predestination and the Ways of Will Ch.   7,  including *1).

This ? It is that although there is ONE AUTHOR of that totally integral reality called man, which fulfils to the uttermost point the definition of design*1, and not a collection of such pseudo-celestial types, all restrained by their mutual identities, and hence requiring a source for this, which being one is ONE as noted: there are many usages of that design, relative to specifications. Thus some abuse it, some over-use it, some are lax in mind or spirit, others in body, others play the martinet on themselves or on others or both; some refuse to recognise their necessary source and engage in antilogies, antinomies and antitheses*2 all but unimaginable in brilliant foolishness, and some love God and others hate Him while others snivel along with secret lack of interest and apparent interest, like Voltaire in his alleged salutation to both God and the devil, for safety's sake!

There is one Author of the designated entities, with their codes and in man's case, odes, their guilt and their guile, their nobility and their pandemonium, their aptitude for order, and for deleting truth and then declaring it as if forgetful of the model chosen for explanation; and there are as we thus see, many exemplars of the design, and of its defilement, for though it be design assuredly, it is far more. While this is no excuse for the obfuscations which become so culturally endemic, presumably as a buffer against the realisation of sin, yet this does help to see the confusion. Thus a design suggests what is defined into place and operates on designation. This is so with man; but the nuance that it has no option, in this case is absent. Man is meta-design.

Hence though there are many, in the design feature called man, there are vast diversities of operation, past all program, involved in assessments of reality, both logical and illogical. He is active in his designs on design, as well as with it, using the designated liberties in which so to act.

On the other hand, these very variations are part of the one MODEL called man. He is modelled into this fabulous reality, past all myth and in the order of profound marvel: so that he can defy his Author, in mind, by alogisms of peculiar order, in body, by abuse of this or that sort, and in spirit, by expressing distaste for his Maker, dissociation from His care  and contempt for His name. That he never has ground for this*3 is part of the amazing mÍlťe. Liberty is as extensive even as that!

That, it is liberty; but not by libretto. It is foreknown, but not imposed. Results may be imposed, but the liberty is not removed except by those excoriations which, defiling the system, remove its proper operation, whether this be from before or after the individual's day. THAT is but one reason why you never find answers to justice and morality in this world as your criterion in itself; it is only when you construe it in it SOURCE, which is one, that you find the answers, which are MANY, covering each facet. This, it is rather like trying to find answers to the stability of a house without reference to its foundation; it is when you take account of this fact, that things begin to fall into place, and to cease to fall out of it.

This dazzling and delightful resolution is one of the topics in GLOW ... Ch. 8, and it involves the foreknowledge, predestination and justice of God, as well as His mercy.  For the present however, our concern is the linkage of the many with the ONE. Here it is profound, and personal to the uttermost. 

All involves the one and the many, but ultimately, the many and the One, from whom it comes, and THEREFORE to whom it must go, not merely for the answers to all questions and conundrums (just as a car needs to go to the reality of its manufacture to find the answers), but for life, of which it is a creation. Life without that eternal Life which is one, being orphaned at once from reality, is just that wild if not mad circuit of folly which many exemplify in their time, as they exhibit it in their thought.

It is a marvel that this liberty is there; but without it, there is no love, and without that, the entire height and depth of man is revoked, leaving him a cold, hard, callous, meaningless blister on the forearm of fate. While that is a ludicrous extrapolation of a spiritual disease, and application of someone, deep in the domain of pathology, of his case to that of all: yet it is, by its very formulation, a revelation of the liberty of man.

Many manage this quite well, sailing in thought into vacuous vacuums with address, paragons of misrule and emblems of irrationality with complacency, making all from nothing in one or various stages, as if their whole lives depended on antinomy and their whole burden of thought could not flow without antilogy; but it is as ludicrous in formula as heartless in fact: while for the unbridled will,  yet an option! it is the double of youth, in its exuberance, hardened into bedevilled follies, the ludicrous lawlessness which appeals because it is empty, and riots because like other weeds, it is exuberant with untempered energy, a divorced autonomy, despising its source and recognising only its vagrant self, destined for oblivion.

(cf. SMR Ch. 3, Trust God, Mate! Forget about 'Fate' ... ).

The great gift of liberty is the receptacle to make love meaningful, and the Author who made man able to dispose his affections and devotion, indeed to worship with reason and to love with discernment, has also provided not only kinds and categories, captions and orders, rules and symbols in the whole structure of living things, from DNA to RNA, from blueprints to executives, from orders to facilities to carry them out and means thereto, but laws and invitations for the cover of their breach, that love may prevail and purity be restored (Isaiah 1, 49-55, Titus 2-3). .

It is this Author who authored Deuteronomy 32, and all the word of God in the book of the Lord (Isaiah 34:16, 8:20), whose precision in work is like that in word. It is He who described in this chapter, as elsewhere in His word,  the despised truth and the exalted shame and sham which would so defile the much loved Israel, recipient of inviolable promises. It is He who as in Leviticus 26 showed there was a price on impurity, and on violation of truth, justice and mercy.

It was He who showed that the chosen nation (Isaiah 41:23) would be cast out for the duration of its durance, to endure the void of vice and the emptiness of exclusion, until in His wisdom He would bring it home as promised. Indeed it is this Israel which He would in part  bring home before they even believed in the Redeemer, whom they despised, as in Ezekiel 36*4; because He is ever liberal and loving, but does not truck in the self-afflicting and self-made garbage that insists on the pit (John 3:19, Isaiah 48:16ff., Ezekiel 33:11).

It was this Israel, one of whose descendants, yes of Abraham, that  'seed', that descendant according to the flesh, of Abraham through whom ALL nations would be blessed. It was this Israel which would be seduced from truth, as Eve was at the first; and it was this same body to which the Lord would bring deliverance in His own way and time; for He is the God of all comfort.

In the next Chapter we will see how the Lord would do such a thing, as we traverse more of this remarkable prediction through Moses from early times, reaching to times yet to come.


Next Chapter







Thus he cites Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould from Gould and Eldredge, Palaeobilogy 3(147) to this effect:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble. Smooth intermediates between Baupl‚ne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."

Transitional elements lack.

The term "Baupl‚ne" means blueprint, and this is the point: you can have modifications wrought by adaptation within the programmed protocols, the information totality, but the blue-print itself, says Gould, is NEVER found in transition. Denton might add, in his famous assertion regarding discontinuity in nature but continuity only in the thought of man: except in human imagination!

Gish cites Swinton, an evolutionist,  from his work, Biology and Comparative Physiology in Birds:

 "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction.
There is no fossil evidence of the stages
through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."

(This is placed in this format in order to draw attention to the progression of thought.)

This is the more interesting, since the 'deduction' is from theory to fact, not vice versa, and contrary to fact. This is not science but philosophy, and bad philosophy. In essence, it should have read something like this: "Since there is no evidence from the remarkable change from reptile to bird, which some postulate, one can only imagine what they would have been, if this had in fact occurred." That however does not sound impressive; nor is it.

In effect, Gould then adds to this negation of transition the further condition: "Even in thought experiments," there is no way to find such a thing!

Science ? This is philosophy fiasco in which determination to delete deity from the crucial operations of creation becomes the enemy of microscope and measurement, of data and gen, of organisation and construction in comparable principles, and leaves a tide of ideas raging in uncelestial torrents on the deserted sea-shore of fact.

Again, in Mammal-like Reptiles, an author, Kempt (p. 319) is cited among a whole list of disavowals here and there on this or that special feature, provided from many, as follows:

"Gaps at the lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another."

This reminds one of Professor Simpson of Harvard, whose statement in accord but much broader was this: "GAPS AMONG KNOWN ORDERS, CLASSES AND PHYLA ARE SYSTEMATIC AND ALMOST ALWAYS LARGE."

Almost anything is adduced, in diversities of irrelevance, from thought forms, to thought wishes, from hopeful monsters to embryonic surges, but nothing ever arrives, except misled nuances and broad statements unnourished by facts, and inflated by imagination. The arrival of the hope-generating necessities is always the problem, and one negatived by logic as by observation cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!).

The gen are inconvenient: that was the word used by a leading official in what is now one of Adelaide's universities, given to the author when reading the riot act on his lecturing, while being unable to fault the content. It did not fit, such lecturing; but what of the facts ? This is apparently a matter held in abeyance for other reasons. Facts ? this is a university!

The intolerance for truth which wilful imagination breeds is not limited to the fantasy and fiasco of contraverted evolutionism: it is part of the nature of fallen man to cling to the wing that does not fly, to the hope that does not have grounding, and to take off on the wheels which do not turn. Abortion is not limited to babies in the womb, but to those of thought in the mind. The litter of the slain in both cases is like a devastated battle-field, and in principle, appalling.






Fits in the theory of evolution are like fits of slim-line garments for someone recently brought to book for obscene obesity. They systematically depart, and the facts as well diverge from expectation. The Grand Canyon has been exposed in a fine book from many minds, Grand Canyon, compiled by Tom Vail, an experienced guided in the location.

It is worth while, as a treat in investigation - the works of the Lord are sought out by those who delight in Him - to see some of the clashes and contrarieties between this Canyon and that other canyon, the pit of evolutionism.


Grand Canyon, A Different View, is then written and compiled by Tom Vail, with a large contribution from various noted scientific authors.


Gradual or Catastrophic!

On p. 24, Andrew Snelling notes that  "towards the end of the twentieth century, many geologists began to realize that the present gradual physical processes could not produce the features observed in many rock layers." More attention was then given to "catastrophic processes, such as storms,  floods, explosive eruptions and meteorite or asteroid impacts." He points out, in a way not unlike that of Nilsson (SMR pp. 108-111, 230, 245, 422H, 614 ) much earlier,  that mass destruction and burial of myriad items of diversified biota, at the same relative levels around the world, gives from the geological record evidence of catastrophic action. The additional fact that many strata are vast in scale, across continental areas, confirms the same, some having parallel characteristics, such as cross-bedding - something an index to rapid fluid flow, sediment transport.

Stephen Austin, Editor of the significant and fascinating work, Grand Canyon, points out on pp. 30ff. that immense amounts of sand were needed to build up the cross-bedding - inclined layers of sand within horizontal beds. The dictionary points out that that there are irregular laminations involved, not in line with the general stratification. Austin exhibits in great detail that the is no way this enormous volume of sand is to be assigned to the surrounding areas, as from rivers, by any discernible means and with a wide use of parallel phenomena in wind and oceanic deposition and attrition, marks out this array of sand in terms of flood-like forces. In fact, the Coconino sandstone which relates to the Grand Canyon, stretches eastward from Arizona into five States, relating to 200,000 square miles and 10,000 cubic miles of sand.

For these, Austin et. al. find no manner of derivation locally; and Austin relates all these phenomena, as does Nilsson because of their diversification and depth, character and nature, to a world-wide movement (loc.cit.), with oceanic source not delimited to one continent. This in turn correlates with the inter-continental phenomenon, and the tendency to similar deposition. The scale does not relate readily to any discernible basis except on a vase scale, where the extent of it is not limited and thus not traceable in any one site for its evocation.

Snelling refers to fossilized sea-shells high on mountains, relating this also to the Kaibab Limestone, the uppermost Grand Canyon layer.  Moreover, turning to the lowest layer of flood-deposition, there is attestation of folding while the material was still soft, so that the planting of the layer and its subsequent uplifting fits the scenario.

Not only is this so, but in many cases there is no evidence of erosions between the deposition of each layer (cf. Austin, op.cit. pp. 42-45, 78, John Morris in Vail's work, pp. 42-43, with pp. 86-87), whereas this is a ludicrous result to postulate from the events of alleged millions of years. Indeed, Steve Austin, writing in Vale's work, "Grand Canyon" emphasises the vast number of nautiloids deposited in a thin but exceedingly extensive layer in the Canyon, at various angles, many upright, with implosions indicative of vast pressures (rather like honey in a thin layer on a slice of bread, but this bread is extensive enough to spread from Arizona to Nevada, about 5700 square miles in extent, and about 6 feet thick.

Similarly, the appearance of the massively specialised and fascinating trilobites in large numbers among the Cambrian strata in the Grand Canyon, from an evolutionary point of view, is buffoonery. It merely mirrors Gould's exasperation at the 'early' arrival of so many vastly complex designs in areas designated eras, supposedly lamely 'trying' to make something out of incipient life.

In consonance with these facts is another one. The Colorado River, as Gray Parker points out in Vale's volume, at the head of the Canyon, is 3000 ft in elevation, whereas the Canyon is about 8000 feet, and water does not flow a mile up hill in this setting. Nor does gradual flow avoid making its way through easy paths, but instead cuts through elevated plateau land direct, moving through rock, as in this case. That, to the contrary, is not only what might be expected, but the sort of thing which is found when dynamic turbulence at great speed confronts rock.

In other words, this is just what would be expected in immense thrust of power and  impact situations, where force is almost unlimited, and impulsion pulverises (cf. Austin op.cit. pp. 84ff.).  Parallel with this, is the frequent finding of huge cliffs with minimal stone or boulder debris beneath, all consistent with violent deposition, not long and slow attrition (op. cit. p. 101), leaving its due deposits as the material collapses over time. Erosion of comparable grandeur has been documented by Austin for the recent Mt St Helen's catastrophe, and photographed (op. cit.. p. 98). Thus the paradigm is produced, and the anomalies are removed, when and only when you move to the scope clearly attested, as to the indications and implications, which even the character of Canyon fossil placement confirms, in its own addition.

It is like the 'tooth-marks' on an apple, an image Professor E.H. Andrews uses in showing the non-fit of fact and theory in evolutionism. These marks are all of catastrophic proportions, inundatory scope, blaringly inconsistent with gradualism, and form in the Canyon a show-piece of demonstration to mock the majesty of prosaic presentations of illusion in evolutionism.

Similarly, we find in Austin's volume (op.cit.), p. 150, that although numerous vertebrate trackways, impressions (as in the vast Coconino sandstone), have been found in Grand Canyon areas, never are vertebrate bodies found. If this were an exhibit of gradual proportions, what more likely than the maintenance of bodies! If facilities for track preservation were present, how much more to be expected are those for the bodies, or skeletons, or skeletal debris, of what made those tracks!

This is merely one among many features which do not admit, en masse, the interpretation which violates, but does not explain. Moreover, trackways, preserved worldwide, ichnofossils or trace fossils, are so prone to be removed by current or other action of wind, that their large appearance world-wide is indicative of highly special conditions to achieve this result, and of these, instant burial with power to achieve such uniform or extensive global coverage, is the theme: not exposure over long periods of time to the boisterous, the changing  and intrusive elements leaving their varied and variable results.

The thing sings like a hymn: inundation, violence, vast areas, discordant results for system over time, impact from the turbulence, the train of water flow, deposition and dynamic of the highest order.

In this as in so much, the facts do not fit gradualism. It is a theory which is implanted into facts, like an egg into boiling water. The environment (water) shows no sign of being adequate for the production, only for the reduction of the egg. In Vail's Grand Canyon, we see on p. 25, from Gary Parker, that the stress in this approach, is what can be touched, tasted, not dreams; and that understandable events like turbidity currents, explain what is seen, while equally indicating that the scale is moving not to merely locality, but to global proportions.


Concordant or Discordant!

On pp. 30ff., from Terry Mortenson,  we find noted the concept that the Colorado River over 70 millions years has carved through solid rock to form the Canyon. Where, however, the question arises, did all the sediment which resulted from so massive an erosion, end up ?

Considering a layer miles thick, we are not looking for a needle in a haystack, but rather monstrous mounds or accumulations; but the sediment to match the assumed gradual action is nowhere to be found. Whatever non-evidential methods may be sought to 'explain' this, it is as usual a morass of hypotheses. Referring to nine major sedimentary layers in the Canyon, Mortenson points out that some of them are found over much of North America. In the Canyon, they lie exposed to the view. The layering may have resulted both from the original creation, which was large scale, and the subsequent flood, monumentally attested by many terrestrial evidences, mutually confirmatory (cf. News 1).

Tasman Walker (pp. 36ff.), in reviewing the horizontal layers in the Grand Canyon, the thick strata which in fact extend for thousands of miles through the USA reasons that the very vastness of these layers and materials point to vast causes. Here, one must observe, in conformity, collation of such magnitude is not the aura of the multitudes of differential dynamics and vast variabilities in regions over time, but the imposition, the interposition of drafting thrust overcoming the relatively minor impacts of actual but comparatively minor agencies in its prodigious power and singular thrust in a short time.

Further, on pp. 87ff., we read of essentially horizontal sedimentary layers across the entire Colorado plateau, in evolutionary terms deposited by multiple oceans as the plateau was supposedly raised and lowered perhaps as many as seven times. Irrespective of the imaginative graffiti which as so often seems to adorn observable facts with weird machinations, devoid of proof, one thing is clear.

If the surface was exposed for imagined millions of years in myriads of events of varied forces in aeons of variation, how are the interfaces conspicuous examples of flat surfaces ? flat "as a pancake". Where are the differential gougings, in these vast areas; but in their extensive absence, we see precisely scope for the torrential forces of deposition, sheet-flooding, urging and surging, as sediments occurred in vast swathes as the flood arose, departed and quiesced. Variety is to be expected; and with that, grand swathes of vast dynamics. This is what is found.

In such circumstances, you no longer have the aeons for significant differential as forces of immense variety make their incidence, but rather the scale and scope of action, as in the flood, are  like those of a potter in his strength, directing now this, now that UNIT of action into its unitary deposit.

A similar point is made by Austin (op. cit. p. 78) citing H.J. Bissell, from his Permian and Lower Triassic Transitions from the Shelf to Basin (Grand Canyon, Arizona to Spring Mountains, Nevada), to this effect:

"Is it possible to have very little evidence of physical erosion between rocks
of two geologic eras, yet have a substantial time gap?"

 The correlative of this is found (op. cit. p.90) through words from  C. B. Hunt, in his Cenozoic Geology in the Colorado Plateau, to this effect: that whereas a movement around solid rock could be expected to be made in any non-catastrophic circumstances, this is not the case, but rather an abrupt procedure THROUGH hard rock was made incisively by the movement of water! "It would indeed have been a unique and precocious gully that cut headward more than 100 miles across the Grand Canyon" to capture other streams.

In fact, cutting straight through hard rock elevations is one of the major features in the world found in the erosive surfaces of many nations (Creation Magazine, June-August 2007, Michael Oard, pp. 18ff.). Suddenly an incision is made in rock, cutting gorges whereas in anything resembling current action one would expect a more leisurely and undoubtedly easier course around the barrier or obstruction. Some gorge gaps are near vertical, some overhang, while the gorges can be 8,000 feet deep, over a mile.

Some streams, Oard remarks as he gauges this broad and rampant world-wide phenomenon, seek 'to "seek"  obstacles to transect..." The Himalayas, the Zagros mountains in Iran contain much to exemplify, the latter in such a way that "streams and rivers appear to shun valleys, and prefer to transect mountains - numerous times." He points out that the worldwide character of this phenomenon having occurred in a similar region of time, this is what is to be expected from a world-wide flood. Let us however return to the specific phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.

There is, says Austin, "no major structural reason as to why a hundred-mile-long drainage would have been positioned where the Grand Canyon is today." Questions of elevation have already been noted, just as slab-like sediments and violation of rock in vast areas through head-on incision have already demanded answers! Arrival and departure of enormous forces and features, so that no trace is found in dumping grounds that might be envisaged, with the rest, present grounds for demise of gradualism with such consistency that one sees once more, the irrelevance of seeking such theories, when facts START the imagination, instead, as is the case, confronting it.

These forces and actions would conform such extent and such degrees of uniformity and evidences of turbidity, into one concept to the point, unifying and explaining succinctly. In accord with this, as noted is the fact that animal tracks  - in the Supai Group and Coconino Sandstone - suggest life before inundation.

The preservation of the imprints does not conform to gradual concepts, any more than the nature of the cross-beds, themselves intrusive in suddenness, distinctive in change, prodigious in insertion force. We face turbulence, creative forces comparable to the nature of the expected sort of fluid products in the flood, or in plasticity, tossed and inserted with a grandeur and scale that does not fuss with inane or arcane theories of some gradual uplift or dissolution. Thus individuality of some dynamic products, and conformity in overall thrust in others are precisely the sort of erratic, yet overall direct action which such splendour and grandeur as the Flood would be envisaged to form, fashion and create.

Indeed, much over North America is showing vast areas of rock incomprehensibly overlaid (cf. John Morris, The Genesis Flood, pp. 180ff.) in terms of expected series in terms of evolutionism. Not only is this 'anomaly' found, but it is present without evidence of the stresses involved if it were a matter of overthrust, again, in just such attestation of overwhelming dynamics of deposition, not gentle gradualisms or variable oddities of minor influences.

Andrew Snelling (pp. 38ff.) points out the ludicrous variations in allegedly implied dates for the same rock type in the Canyon, differences such as those between 1070 and 516 millions years, on one count, and 840 and 1375 million years on another, while emphasising the unproven assumptions which produce such mockery of any type of precision or reliability. Normally, when results of a method are vastly contrary to each other, and to the underlying facts, one has to use other methods while tracking down and correcting the flaws.

It is necessary to attest that this has not been done. In fact decay rates of the radioactive elements, diversifications in rocks, on the absence of which one method depends, removal of  'products' over time, from tested materials as well as non-conformity with practical facts alike make radioactive dating just as serenely incompetent on the scale of its use, as the noted Professor E.H. Andrews points out in such rather fascinating coverage in brief form, of dating as that of God, Science and Evolution, Ch. 6, on the Age of the Earth. He indicates that in practice geologists often show disinclination to rely on radioactive dates, being more concerned with rocks and deposits for such things. Contradictions from different methods of radioactive dating, of the apparent situation to which the dates are supposed to refer, make it rather a dismal thing if one wants reliability.

Small wonder is this so,  is the keynote of Andrews in this field, since unlikely assumptions and discordant results make the matter more abstrusely theoretical than usefu,  more an exercise in unrelieved dogmatics than in practical science.

Dr Steve Austin makes a point, of abundant interest, of showing the genuinely fantastical nature of working on such assumptions again and again, in the Grand Canyon. And why is this so ? It is for the simple reason that the dating given from theory of this kind, contradicts abundantly apparent geological needs or necessities (cf. pp. 127ff., 101ff.), whilst on p. 123ff., he notes another disorderly feature. It is the cast-away element relative to inconvenient dating results, things 'rarely reported' but all too much in conformity with the collision with practical necessities and diversity which result from different radioactive methods. If it does not fit expectation, remove it as anomalous, rather than face the implications.

Indeed a whole heap of violations of imposing disciplines results from following radiometric dating as is often done (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5 as marked, The gods of naturalism have no go! Ch. 7, News 1, and SMR pp. 169ff., 236-239, 246).  

Vail's work (op.cit.), pp. 41ff., notes from the work of the RATE group of scientists, specialising on rates and dates, that  undecayed C-14 appears in material relating to fossilized life "throughout the whole fossil record". What is the implication of such endurance of this element ? It is this,  Baumgardner there indicates. On current assumptions, this residual material limits the date of the earth to 70,000 years, and taking into account biosphere changes in the global flood, to around 5000 years. Similarly, as noted in the magazine "Creation" (p. 10, June-August 2007), "Exceptionally-preserved muscle tissue, blood vessels and nerve cells": have been found from a fossilised fish (Eastmanosteus calliaspis). Dated by modish and usual methods, this is set at 380 million years old. The muscles were "very much like our red muscles".


Myth or Mental Muscle -
Evolutionism with its gradualisms and commotions of mingling, or Creation with its abrupt creativity,
splashing designs like rockets on a National Day!

This in turn reminds of earlier finds, as seen in this except from Calibrating Myths ... Ch. 1, Endnote 1:


Indeed, these data give ample thrust to the conception of an earth young enough to allow for FOSSIL DNA (Creation, March-May, 1993, p. 9). There cited in New Scientist, Oct. 17, 1992, is a Nature article's reference to DNA magnolia tree fragments, "allegedly some 18 million years old", in the context of Nature's article to the effect that "the rate at which DNA breaks down spontaneously means that after 10,000 years there should be none left."  Even excluding moisture and bacteria, says New Scientist, this means that "total breakdown should occur by 10,000 years at most."

Amber is a good keeper for this, and New Scientist reports that two separate teams of US researchers have "extracted DNA sequences from a termite and a stingless bee, both in ... amber, of evolutionary age 30 million years." Similarly, New Scientist reports that dinosaur bones of e.g. 75 million years, have "yielded the protein osteocalcin". As proteins have long chains which naturally disjoin, this discovery confirms the others just noted. Such things as these are no longer in defiance of bio-chemistry, when the evidence is all taken as it requires, in terms of laws and logic, to its conclusion. A young earth is the empirical indication, and satisfies what nothing else does in many dimensions.

Again in Dec.- Feb. 1996 (p.9) , Creation magazine again quotes from New Scientist (May 27, 1995) re "many recent claims  of extracting DNA - tiny, unbroken strands of complex molecule that carries the various instructions for living things - from amber insects." This is an exciting new discovery, it notes, for creationists. It  adds that "evidence that DNA should not be there after only 10,000 years is " so persuasive" that some try to discount the evidence itself. Now, it relates,

v           "the chairman of the microbiology department at California Polytechnic State University, and an assistant, have claimed in Science magazine they have cultured live bacteria from the gut of a bee in Dominican amber. According to evolutionary assumptions, the fossil is 25-40 million years old." General agreement, despite wonderment and concern, is that the claim is 'most compelling'. The researchers also claim that have revived 1500 different types of ancient micro-organism.

Yet such matters do not stop: for how could you hold back a dam by a theory ? Thus in a 2000-2001 report, there is claim to have isolated and revived salt-resistant bacteria from a salt intrusion dated 250 million years old appeared (reported in Nature 407:897-900, 2000). Great pains, it is indicated, were taken to prevent contamination.


Like the case, also noted by Baumgardner, of high levels of helium retention in zircon crystals in granite rocks. However, measurements of decay of helium migration through these crystals indicated, a few thousand years for the maximal process time. Further on this is noted in Moon Soon, Ch. 1 Endnote 8:

Indeed, these data give ample thrust to the conception of an earth young enough to allow for FOSSIL DNA (Creation, March-May, 1993, p. 9). There cited in New Scientist, Oct. 17, 1992, is a Nature article's reference to DNA magnolia tree fragments, "allegedly some 18 million years old", in the context of Nature's article to the effect that "the rate at which DNA breaks down spontaneously means that after 10,000 years there should be none left."  Even excluding moisture and bacteria, says New Scientist, this means that "total breakdown should occur by 10,000 years at most."

Amber is a good keeper for this, and New Scientist reports that two separate teams of US researchers have "extracted DNA sequences from a termite and a stingless bee, both in ... amber, of evolutionary age 30 million years." Similarly, New Scientist reports that dinosaur bones of e.g. 75 million years, have "yielded the protein osteocalcin". As proteins have long chains which naturally disjoin, this discovery confirms the others just noted. Such things as these are no longer in defiance of bio-chemistry, when the evidence is all taken as it requires, in terms of laws and logic, to its conclusion. A young earth is the empirical indication, and satisfies what nothing else does in many dimensions.

In short, what we find is constant, continual, repudiation of gradualistic theses, and constant, continual confirmation by verification of what is from the outset, logically required, namely the biblical depiction of the creation. It did not make itself, nothing does at any level without what at that level is required; and nothing has nothing to boast about even if you invoke it. The necessity of the power of the creative activity of God is not only found in logic, but in verificatory procedures. The lapses in the gradualistic approach, say in this dating method, relate beautifully to the vast multitude of clear young earth data which cannot be silenced (cf. The Scientific Case for Creation, John Morris, pp. 54ff., Scientific Creationism, Ch. 6 and That Magnificent Rock, on this site, at Ch. 7 E).

The theories whether in terms of matter of fossil, astronomy or deposition, age or preservation, arrival or nature of arrival, are all at odds with facts. Only blind hope in unscientific options in the face of scientific REQUIREMENTS of modesty for theories, in conforming FIRST to facts, carries forward the many times bankrupted folly of nothing-itis. It does not work at the outset, in the onset or in the mind-set.

What does work is creation in its manifold myriadform marvels, deposited in kinds, in times more like creative rapture than milling mists of uncertainty.

The Grand Canyon is merely one more excavation which confirms the intimation: theory must WORK, unless it be fairy-theory, bleary theory, weary theory of the obfuscatory kind. What fits here, as the Steve Austin additives on Spirit Lake in the recent eruption of Mount St Helens (SMR pp.  164ff.) merely confirm, is speed and facility, agility and aptitude, and as that author so well points out on p. 148 (Austin, op.cit.), it does so even in outlines mirroring facts. Closely related erosion structures are to be found from St Helen's and from supposedly slowly formed parallels elsewhere. This is virtually experimental evidence, since it has happened virtually before the very eyes of those who have closely followed the Mt St Helen's developments in the days of their occurrence.

Gould does something similar but less categorical in his Wonderful Life. Gould's desires as often shown, do not meet his aspiration, even though his admissions are classic! (cf. Wake Up World!... Ch. 6). HOW, he asks, do we have what he estimates at a 90% loss of structural design variations in kind, since the Cambrian (as in his Burgess shale deposits in Canada), when we are supposedly accounting for production of design! How in heaven's name! he fulminates can loss be gain, gradual deposition, sudden arrival! Nothing in his later works alters the empirical reality, or the nothingness that he, like Darwin, but in a different way, presents for the inventions in the first place. He however, does not even attempt the comedy, as the attestation and the method alike, fail to be verified (cf. Gould, op.cit. pp. 227ff., 46, 236).

Gould's admission (p. 236 op.cit.) that "if we face the Burgess fauna honestly, we must admit that we have no evidence whatsoever - not a shred - that the losers of the great decimation were systematically inferior in adaptive design to those that survived." Darwin brought in a toy motor for the arrival genius required, when new kinds came; Gould laughs at the idea while putting it in place in what, after all, he declares is decimation in the time from Cambrian, LOSS, not gain  Even then, the losers were not found by design prowess, adaptive superiority: such is his declaration. His estimate of evidence to the point is comic and lively: not a shred

Alas he provides nothing even in the realm of the plausible,  for their raison d'Ťtre but engages in a punctuated equilibrium which is all about stoppage after exercise, and does nothing to provide the exercise itself (cf. SMR pp. 315Aff., Wake Up World!  Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6).

Let us however return to the sketch concept, the picture of the kinds and the diversifications.

Thus the evidential pattern, Austin indicates, is a series of phyla, horizontally aligned, with diversifications trailing downward from them. It is not a series of branchlets aggregating through new prongs from a trunk basis as a support to start, something gradually making a scene of much from little things; nor is it a series of impacts doing the same arising to kind.

It is all or nothing. You do not have to 'wait' for types. They come freely at the outset, sub-varieties often teeming at the same time, if a time line in rocks is to be assumed, even in part, even in the basement! Slow or fast, it is all one for method: you get the works and then the workings.

This is precisely the biblical picture, and precisely the opposite of the gradualistic self-formation concept. Indeed, as Austin relates it, "Disparity precedes diversity", the emphasis is KINDS first, with increasing diversity among the lower taxa. The things is the opposite to the theories of Darwin, anti-empirical as they are; and Austin (p. 148 op. cit.) cites by a work of palaeontologists Erwin, Valentine and Seproski, "A Comparative Study of Diversification Events" to the effect that the "major pulse of diversification" occurs "before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families." The major pattern, top to bottom, says Austin is contrary to the theory of Darwin.

The disposition of evidence and the theories do not match, except in the case of creation. The patterns of diversity and disparity, as Austin depicts diagrammatically, fit only one cause: creation. The others are far from met by the evidence. Only in the case of creation do we have the model-required and fossil-found correlation of basic types arriving, spreading out in profusion and diversification in time in more minor groupings. The diagrams both of Gould and Austin show one thing in common: branchlets do not form first, but kinds: and these spread outward with lateral (not vertical) diversification, once the KIND is presented. This is to be empirically constrained!

Such is the attestation on the very form of the idea of strata found in the Canyon, and so often mirrored, and if these have any relationship at any point to time, this is the testimony. In other words, if current geology is right in its concepts, it is wrong. Based on this, even in part, it is self-unfulfilling!  The more the ideas are searched out, the more they have diversity - from fact.

As with Communism, the ideas are all known with rigour. The only problem is that they do not work, so they are forced on people, in the political case, with force of arms, and in the biological, with the force of educational molestation and discrimination, cultural dissemination and media blasting (cf. Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8, and Government Composite).

Indeed, history, biblical prediction and evidential testimony of life agree in one thing: there is One base, basis, source, power, precision-maker, evidence-meeter, sufficiency for spirit, mind and matter. He is not without a word, and His word, the Bible, ALONE meets all conditions from all angles, and the more we research, the more apparent it is that NO ONE field has anything but insoluble problems when it ignores what logic in the first place inexorably demands (cf.  SMR, TMR): God the Creator and the Bible His word - and with that Christ, the only Saviour for that kind called man, whether here or there, now or then. 

Creation-kind-power, whether in flood as biblically noted, or in creation as also declared, whether in history compared with prophecy or in the KIND of world developments we have (cf. SMR Chs. 8-9), their direction, specific vortices and inflammation, whether in the logical systematics that correlate with the physical actualities, or in the inexorable verifications of data on all sides with unchanging account, static for millenia, because truth needs no change, nor will it suffer any: it is this which fits on the one hand, and is demonstrably required, on the other. The Bible of the Lord and the Lord of the Bible, the Christ and the cross, imprinted in it and in history: these remain the only tested, verified, vindicated, valid paths for reason and life (cf. Chapter 3 above, *10).

Systematics create only what is in their purvey; and the creation of the systematics is what is in the purvey of what creates them: intelligent, systematic, disciplined, acute, supremely penetrating and masterfully marshalling thought. The tying of loads of systems in integrality, first material, then mental, then spiritual, in things directed, in things discerning, in things decisive, this allied to the invention of the systems, and their marshalling into one, is what creation is.

It is not something else. It is invested in man in limited spheres, but crucial episodes, where his will is wrought, but wandering, needs to be taught, but rebelling refuses instruction.

It is epitomised in the creation of incarnation, by which the Creator irrupts into creation, as Jesus Christ, so able freely to redeem man, as many as receive Him. What is free and omnipotent, this is needed but needs nothing, being neither made nor made to be; but willing and doing as He will, with aseity, eternity and unconditioned illimitability, who is what He wishes, and knowing all and having created the limitations of time, is beyond it.

Time itself is a mere part of His creation, an induced and produced power for patience from Him who being Creator, even imparts creativity that man may design within the designations which enable him, and in the spirit which grants him wings to thought, wisdom for heart and dynamic for life if he will follow the guide; or woes unremitting if he opts for unrealism.

But what of man's self-induced demise, in its present setting ? What is chagrined and unchaste, wilfully wandering away from the restoration of life man needs, this is wander not by design, but by the potential of design, misused in the personal realm. Like pitted steel, it will not stand its load.

Deposition, creation through words or works, it is all one: it is always DEITY, DECLARATION, INFORMATION, DIVERSIFICATION as the principles or kinds operate under supervisory control. THIS is what fits.

Further, He has made all this clear over some 3.5 millenia, and has changed nothing. Man's much vaunted science, good in spots where it keeps to the point, but addled when it seeks to turn an egg into a flying machine, or extrapolation into anything but magic, or diversification on various model and mode specifications, into self-creation by non-existent means, while elves and fairies do the building: this does not fit when it indulges in these fits of fancies. It gains no licence when it is illicitly wedding them to its more mundane and far more useful concerns, where by contrast, it is starting from facts and building theories, rather than moving from theories as a basis for facts ...

which do not fit!

What makes the situation not merely ludicrous, in obstructive evolutionary fantasy, but gravely comic, is the fact that the Bible predicted FOR THE TIME which is in detail indicated in the Bible for such things (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5), that is the present: precisely such a widespread reluctance. Indeed, it gave not merely the kind of approach here exposed, but and its nature and atmosphere and ground as well (I Peter 3:1-5, cf. Joyful Jottings    8; II Peter 2), as if to pour scorn on the erosive fantasies of culturally conditioned and religiously revisionists dreams which would, and now do, animate many.




See Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4.



On design and matter, mind and spirit, man and logic, scientific method and this entire array: see the following.

Dig Deeper, Higher Soar, Divine Glory Delights the More Ch. 2

The Pride of Life, the Prince of Life and the Destiny of Man Ch.    5, esp. *6

Dancers, Prancers, Lancers and Answers Ch.  5,

The Wit and Wisdom of the Word of God ... Ch.  2 esp. *1,

The Open Door, The Closed Mind ... Ch.    3.



On the trifling with logic endemic to anti-design, see:

 SMR pp. 307ff.. Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 1, 5


Gracious Goodness Ch. 5, esp.    4,  

Deliverance from Disorientation Chs.  1,  8,

Glory, Vainglory ... Ch. 3,

The Open Door ...  Ch. 3

What is the Chaff to the Wheat ... Ch. 3

News 381

Spiritual Refreshings Ch.  13,

Earth Spasm ... Chs. 1, 2, 7,

Christ the Wisdom of God ... Ch. †7,†

Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed Ch.    4,

Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Ch.  4-7,

Beauty for Ashes Ch.  † 3,

Joyful Jottings † 2, 16,

Calibrating Myths ... Ch. 1 (much on Light, Dating, DNA and Gould),

No Thanks for Angst ... Ch.  †8,

Dizzy Dashes ... Ch.   8,

The Wit and WIsdom of the Word of God Ch.  2 esp. *1  7
(desire, design, purpose, potential and programmatic aid),
and 4 (the helpless hiatus of the hypothetical); 
Dig Deeper, Higher Soar Ch.   I (the result when you disestablish nothing),

Repent or Perish Ch. 7.



On this, see

Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer

Scientific Method, Satanic Methoa and the Model of Salvation

The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy.


In confirmation, in addition, see the volumes

Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ




See It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls Ch. 10.