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





The number of small, stunted brain creatures like Lucy, now supplemented by this and that, including the ape-like little Naledi specimens, and allied oddities of the startling spread of correlatives and innovations of one  sort and another, is growing. 

These little objects with their little brains and little variations of all kinds of ratios and comparisons of numerous features, well illustrate the desperation of those who look at what is far from human in many respects, but is found to be somewhat more like some other bony little creature, are being compared creatively,  like Morris Minors and early war Volkswagens, like station wagons and four wheel drives, where indeed in some cases various aspects of the creations indeed look a bit like one or the other in this or that feature. It is important to find the DNA and consider the various aspects, especially kinds of features used, as with any engineer, with adaptations for various convenient creative sites.

Even with apes, there are grades of internal diversity, not accidental nor incidental but rolled out in terms of directive DNA in spacious management aggregations. These creatures are vacant horrors almost like a caricature of man in their vast omissions, in mind, spirit, understanding, imagination and rigour, the assembly gap between the guidelines for building each, now known to be far greater in diverse information in the DNA than originally thought, just as the differences in OBSERVABLE behaviour are staggeringly different. The early understanding of the sophisticated logic and forms, formats and internal mini-spheres of operation of DNA now sounds almost like a primary school study, compared with the wheels-within-wheels of reality, still being disentangled, not in life, but in the surveying minds of man as he studies what is superb beyond comparison in the observable and categorisable field.

In analogy, it is like comparing an aeroplane and a car, the one having much similar to the other, in terms of certain common features for common functions, while crucial differences not too noticeable to those who long to forget or who do not understand or want to see the point of functionalities are also plain. These are far greater in the analogy, than the simple fact aeroplanes, unlike cars,  can fly under direction.  As Professor Oxnard once pointed out, people rush to assert that there is some intermediate, but the bubble bursts almost routinely. In effect, many refuse to wait literally till they KNOW what they are talking about, as with the relatively vacant and CATEGORICALLY different apes and men. He pointed out the vast age of some undoubtedly human bones.

Apes radically lack the unique and far-reaching properties of man, and they never even know what one is talking about if confronted with the needs such as those for the current topic. Functionally, the difference between ape and man is far greater, incomparably greater, than that even between a space ship and a Volkswagen, and yet in some terms they have items in common. There are the rules of logic and the symbolic representations of elements of argument or understanding as a type. It is relatively useless to argue about angles before the capacities and DNA situations, relationships and their significance are known and are evaluated with understanding of the complexities and character of this great work, called man..

The arguments, and their tenacities in the uproar currently in place, depend on different basic assumptions which control the sought outcome, in what it means. Hence they cannot agree, for it is like using different mathematical systems in order to manipulate numbers. The applicability of the systems being in view, in question, and rather deranged in some cases, than arranged, allow for and virtually determine what is being said.

There are very numerous correlations and dis-correlations, as in any packet of ignorance, where educated guesses ignore the underlying and fundamental principles in control. The writing of new DNA as if by a massive and unique intelligence without principles or governance, when its sophistication makes that of man look almost trivial, in terms of results obtained and systematic means used, is assumed, but never found. NEVER is it found to happen without intelligence. It deploys the symbol-reality combinations so near to mathematics, the analytically correct modes of transferring information and implementing its orders, that is the intrinsic nature of thought. To divorce it from thought is to ignore definition of terms; to include it is to note the obvious. These things run accordingly to a plan, integral, minute in discipline of thought, flowing to outcome, and both logic and plans refuse to arrive, pink and happy, from delimited matter.

If it were otherwise, it should be shown. We are not dealing with fairy stories, but empirical, analytical reality; and there lies the difference. Scientific method demands data to interpret; and these things, including something from nothing, another flat self-contradiction, do not provide.

Similarly, the correlations of guesstimates of age without knowledge of all relevant features, and in the midst of diverse and inco-ordinate field results, is another fallacy. To find actual DNA which in a given case, remains intact  in its fragile and unpetrified vulnerability for many millions of years is a parallel. In this case, what was considered of one, limited dimension for endurance over time, has had to be given  theoretical power to endure, in ways not found in any empirical sense, or systematic depiction.

It is now to be conceived as lasting in terms of millions of times expansion: Delicate elements of fragility have to remain as if recent. Why ? the mutually conflicting modes of dating by radioactive assumptions is said to ask for it. You transform fragility into durability by means of a series of presuppositions including rates of radioactive decay, that are not demanded by data ? What is this ? It comes to  sound like the maestro of manipulation addressing a crowd of idle onlookers. Careful analysis as with the RATE group of scientists  moves to explore evidence broadly to resolve these paradoxes. You get these when assumptions ignore restrictions in the area of data, and let imagination go freely like a foal in Spring. "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," was a volume produced by this group, which has been an active team of Ph.D. scientists.

This is merely one more un-coordinated result. Impossible things before breakfast continually is on the menu.

Myths don't match. That is the nature of it, when imagination runs riot.

The underlying assumptions are categorically invalid, for unsophisticated, unintelligent, inartistic, materials to arise from NO logically correlative base (or strictly, from nothing itself!) , but then to USE one, and then to add life forms in DNA from a basis that from the outset has NOTHING to offer, in providing what is never even hinted at in anti-aetiological nullity, simply lacks ultimately in two ways. Causatively, it is void and vain. It is also outrageous in anti-empirical baldness, voiding the first, as also the LAST logical step in rational expectation and necessity. Empirically, it is NEVER ONCE found happening, a time excuse being used for what after all, cannot be observed, like any other miracle, unless it happened.

Cause remains crucial for coherence of thought, or missing, invalidates all thought at the outset, making argumentation fallacious, and so reasoning for any such theory a non-starter. Imagine 'nothing' having a baby called logic, or begging the question being a method of accounting for things. It is not merely illicit and illogical, for it enjoys the status of farce.

The last time such an  abundant writing of script for  life, as the DNA constitute,  is empirically known to have happened, clad, compressed and cogent in a systematic and clearly indicated manner, was in moving from the first origins to the vast array of sophisticated designs splashing into existence without traceable background. Dealing with the Cambrian for example, the issuance came with sub-types FIRST, not last,  as Gould pointed out. The opposite was the theoretical, evolutionist expectation. The branches came before their stem, rather than the stem to adorn itself with branches. Delicate differentials in life forms, Stephen Jay Gould attests at length, precede rather than follow, simplification.

Things made tend, without care, to die out, such as energy in its availability and as the Second Law of Thermodynamics in essence indicates, and experience confirms. Wonderful inventions are not in their intricacy found to invent all sorts of sub-types, but to wait on their first producer for such knowledgeable adaptations; and what is programmatic in kind, like DNA, operates in one way, and is MADE in another. Seeing it go is not seeing it come.

So it is characterised, the magic and the empirical distinctly and decidedly different. In scientific method, getting the cognate, the lively possible theories and selecting in one thing; and splendid are the confirmations that may be found. Selecting a theory without even logical contact with the empirical evidence, is dead, null, deficient and defective, a scramble under attack, that cannot work.

These things in DNA done,  then in earlier epoch, then, though ceased, evidentially in terms of nothing more than hope, they are assumed a universal law. But law describes what is HAPPENING. That is not merely false but fiasco. It is the whole point that it is not now seen to be happening, that it ceased, which is in view. This is ignoratio elenchi, ignoring the point at issue, a common logical fault.

Such writing has not been observable since the outpouring epoch, and that is precisely what consistently relates to creation. Write a book and do not write another. No one is astonishing. Crativity is like that, and that is its option. The assumption "without intelligence" is the point answerable by evolutionism. When causality and scientific method are conjoined, then of course we LOOK for what has intelligence correlative to the product, life and its DNA. We do not take up a position against it, like fighting divorcees, each in a pouting corner. In SMR the point is pursued to its logical conclusion, and then this is tested both analytically and empirically, to ensure it meets every consideration duly presented. Naturally it does, and nothing else is shown to be capable of the same. But that is here a mere reference.

. It is useless rationally to guess that what cannot be shown, is never seen, and is contrary to logic, the creation of ultra-co-ordinated system in the face of its total assumed absence, is what happened. On that basis, you can assume anything, having neither logic nor the observable on your side.

Empirical, rational, demonstrable exhibitions are not found. The results of major events in terms of major DNA compilations and constellations in symbolic-executive terms are found. Failures and technical foozles are NOT found littering the littoral of time. The attestation of the theory in all but unimaginable multitudes of technical failures, this is lacking. It is like having an explosion with no discharge of energy.

This sort of assignment, symbol and its signification is an intellectual operation, found amidst catastrophic events, diseases, guessable functions. In evolutionism, this is prodded into the vision of the mind, ex-reason, ex-observable example, ex-known means, and ex-micro-biological gradualism. This last Denton points out, stating that this assumed gradation in chance upgrades of sophisticated systems (we remind ourselves, ex-billions of findings of DNA failures on the way) exists only in the mind of man, never in nature .He is categorical.

It is crafted with all the exuberant multiplicity of creativity. Results are distinct, distinctive, not mergers. Such is his attestation. Absent foozles by the trillion are not found. Period. This is known as non-verification, the normal mode of removing a foolish or inadequate idea in science.

Indeed, in his empirical beginning in EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, p. 290, Denton makes the point that "each class at the molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules,  like fossils have failed to provide the intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology", as in kindred work seen on pp. 77ff., 132ff.. Moreover, assuming a principle in nature to do it, is merely to  cover with words the practical realities to which he drew attention. Such a principle can rationally be formulated only in terms of observable, differentiable results which illustrate it systematically, and show all the steps involved, to be inspectable.

Otherwise the 'principles' are merely names for what is not shown to be there, a verbal cover for desire. The very nature of natural principles is this, that they put into words, what is found to have the character in question. They are not words for ideas, in this sphere, but for evidence, to sum it up.

Not thus are the laws of science formulated, formulable or differentiable from children's fiction. Assuming this to have done it, has not only nothing to do with science, as distinct from scientism, but is a gross imposition both on intelligence and scientific method. It is precisely like assumptions concerning ghosts - it has the same failure to reason, following assumptions, hopes and desire, against all systematic grounding. It is better to be utterly disciplined and to follow logical criteria with necessary restraint if you want to find out what has happened and why.

Nothing never produced anything; and ALL other options ALWAYS assume in principle ALL that is required, by the method of begging the question, inserting things from nowhere into beginnings, and developments, as if stolen from nowhere. These are then surreptitiously used in the suppositious arrival of anything handily handing over  the characteristics to be displayed, just as they  miraculously get here in the first place. They arrive; they insert; they work; their basis is nothing and their operation is of the highest order of integration, facilitation and signification-execution.

These inventions of the imagination do not answer any logical question, being hostile to reason, results without causes. It is an enormous logical fallacy,  being the adventitious and meretricious nature of a vacuous mental movement. It is quite simply invalid, abruptly short-circuiting all  logical principle. It also, as is made so  clear by now retired Cornell University Professor, Dr J.C. Sanford in his Genomic Entropy, is converse to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, building where the law to the contrary, has retrograde movement, increase of entropy, including the reduction of available energy over time. Specifications and available power alike decline.

This reduction has the advantage that it is known to happen and cannot happen in the universe indefinitely. Postulated other universes lack the advantage of showing themselves or in any case, establishing their relevance. Indeed they have just as much need to be made first as the actual one which we have as evidence. If however logic is thought not to have any relevance to such things, this means that automatically reasoning has no relevance in favour of evolution, then being part of the model.  The model would prevent even its logical statement, being self-contradictory at the outset.

The wryly amusing point of course arises that while contra-law and anti-logic evolutionism is building man in the mind of imagination, ignoring the empirical, logical and legal, all in one sweep, the  genome of man, with its ongoing generation by generation copies, is degrading till the melt-down situation eventually is the downhill resultant. It is precisely like playing an orchestra of sound while the ship, unaware of the thrill of this, is simply going down. Sanford shows this counterpoint. When imagination is given free lease, you can even have the exact converse of fact, in some fields such as evolutionism, and then have a rude and shameful awakening, when the actual principles are after all what are at work, not magical constructions to start and stop erratically.

But let us further pursue the clash of concepts, methods and collisions of ideas found in this field, with its vast complexities, and magnificent specifications for building still sitting here, slowly degrading through use. When you add myriads of elements as in comparison of any hi-tech designs, as does Jean O'Micks (pseudonym) at


and ponder as another does pathological distortions like rickets.

These include disease-imposed variations in bones,  readily related to rickets as just one option, and see the citation of research material that "that H. naledi either shows continuity with members of the Australopithecus baramin, or that it is not continuous with members of the human holobaramin". This coming in the helter-skelter of vast diversities of assessment, then what ?

Then one realises anew the extreme sophistry which can readily penetrate such discussions. Platitudes and plasticities never demonstrated, mingle with evidential adaptabilities, all of which are, in a maxi-mix-up. This needs its own analysis.

The article prefaces the findings with this: "In the wake of a detailed discussion within creationist circles about the baraminic status of Homo naledi (McLain 2017; O’Micks 2016a, b, c 2017; Wood 2016a, b 2017), more evidence has accumulated that H. naledi indeed is a member of the Australopithecus baramin, and is not human." Predictable indeed are the vast impelling waves of clashing surges that result, for there is little commotion like that of notions, and the more so, when the author and original of our design specifications is in view. Without doubt, many want to be free from law, and just enjoy what has been wrought with labour, like someone enjoying a sports car, which he neither bought nor made, just imagining it came without cause onto his front lawn.

But it was made. And it was paid for, not least in labour. When matter can be seen writing out anew such things (God declares and evidence attests that this vast outpouring is finished) , and nothing producing matter, and lawlessness producing law and sustaining it, then while the clouds rain jewels, we might have something else. But we do not have such things. There is a reason for what is, and ignoring it does not remove the necessity, but simply deletes the relevance of any argument.

Even more, there is the element of man NOT HAVING THE WIT to develop this DNA symbolic machinery, as one might style it, but instead in witless talking amidst concentric circles of variant data, many appear to try to find productive powers asserting themselves through minute adjustments, while the multiple tasking and fascinating multi-gene constructions make it clear that point change in the genome is not to the point, but clusters of change are activatable, more like an add-on.

It is indeed attested that these are there to activate. They are not found to be inventing themselves with adroit symbolic-executive combinations, but sustained in accord with those already there. Supposed adventitious changes make tangles, as Professor Sandford points out, provide deteriorations over time and assist deteriorations, making in repeated generations,  increasing complexities and dis-correlations over time, a weight and a burden.

Possible point advantages are rare, for special circumstances, and are swallowed up in the  cluster available for change, which overwhelms their practical help in relatively massive hindrance. The direction is down, as is in principle apparent as in practice attested, for what else in such a universe could you expect in endless copying from  copies! Indeed, even if you disbanded all lower level students in a class (people or properties), you would not be productive of geniuses, just a less varied resultant, merit unchanged. It still leaves attainment unaltered, and advance irrelevant.

Evolutionism has always lacked generative equipment, even in principle, even granted that it is reductionist and avoids the major problems of mind and spirit and beginnings and ends and what to do about it and why it happened. It is a sleeping hypothesis, ignoring facts while man who so dreams, is genetically falling more and more  without parachute of rational investigation.

One major point shown is this, that the business of trying to find an ancestor to man with DNA of Einsteinian and more proportions of depth and understanding displayed (matter does not have nor can it generate understanding since it has nothing with which to do it), leads among many causative myths of impossibility, to endless clangour in those who debate in dimness.

Moreover, the programmed variabilities enabled by mathematical marvels in the systematic constructions of these life forms, can lead to much adjustment from relatively little environmental activation of various genes, or variant activation of strings of inter-related genes, so that one realises that any talk of lawlessness, of nothing producing a universe of laws and engineering ultra-genius tracing things with splendid cleverness, on the one hand, and yet with no exhibition of sheer torrents of unworkable, foozled DNA on the way to the work of genius we now have, is a matter of unmethodical irrelevance, incredible as any aping of scientific method.

To go where all example, developmental evidence, empirical attestation, causative systematic connection is missing, in order to explain how it is present is surely one of the greatest myths of all time.

It is a pity people have to study such nonsense, not anomalous merely but extraneous. Instead, as Professor Løvtrup lamented, of concentrating on empirical facts, unquestioned laws, many wallowed in presumption, eating up research funds with their prejudice. In reality, acting to find their minimal source rationally and pursuing genuine research in terms of unquestioned laws when there is only one result, is as necessary as breathing. What is neither the dead end, matter, nor a floating facility within the system, one neither attested, nor evidentially characterised, with mind derived from nothing yet part of the system, also from nothing, is no more than a facile substitute for rational thought.

What that actual type is, is not only deducible from its productive nature and operations, in significant measure (as done in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock), but seen in measure in some kinds of function in ourselves, where surely we all have some unavoidable  experience.

What is that ? WE, for our part start and stop creating in a project, or series of projects, continually; WE imagine and contrive and invent and manufacture subtleties for adaptiveness in our cars and planes and space ships, to react to situations arising without turning this equipment into something else,but with available options. WE are familiar with, and more, operative in precisely such things, as a prime example IN ourselves of what has to be explained.

We DO the type of symbol-assignment of meaning correlations as a work of intelligence and mental appointment and apportionment, almost automatically because it is inherent in the minds given to us, invisible logical apparatus where we are challenge to  proper use or futility. WE in our spirits decide when enough is done, and then STOP.

There is no law. There is no lawyer to tell us in our creative enterprises and imagination. It is a work which precedes, supervises and superintends, and to some extent maintains such systems, correlative to purpose. Yet to "explain" ourselves outside our evident  domain of operation, as far as possible from those evident parameters of our institution, what it took to make us as we are, becomes a passion of irrelevance, a torture of denial, an aspiration for many of replacing the One who having these things in abundance, USED them to make their testimony. WE are that. He is far better than nothing at such creation.

That is why He has succeeded,  and even provided us with the same kind of anti-chance logic which fits with and furthers our understanding of the universe. Chaos did not create logic, and the unthinkable nullities many hold vaporously in mind, did not create thought.

That is one  reason why you can never escape logic, for you are made with it, and must learn to use it, for it is what fits the actualities of this universe, and did not invent itself, being present eternally, with what uses it: a personal Creator and operator. This Being is normally known as God, and challenges all to test Him in His word, the Bible, rationally to find alternative basis for it   ... or for ourselves (Isaiah 41:19ff., 44:1-6, 45:1ff). All this is comprehensively present, on this side and that, the work of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock trilogy to make manifest in persistent principle, with a further 239 volumes covering aspects of relevant attestation. It is no unknown God who answers the questions (cf. Isaiah 44:6-7, 45:19).

To interpret all this with an irrelevant, pernicious but impassioned insistence on avoiding etiological reality, is of course a work of futility, precisely like trying to master mathematics IN the REAL world while refusing to believe that 2 plus 2 equals four.

Once you

start with logically viable principles, and adhere to scientific method (see Scientific Method ... , a volume in this site), and

realise the acuity and plurality of methods of adaptation implanted in much of life, in the DNA's mode of construction,

impacts of disease,

diversification through increasingly defective genes, actually found, an attested reality affecting our race existentially,

and so begin relevant thinking:

the issues become fascinating to the alert, where the demonstration of the Creator becomes rather a delight, being on all sides uniquely and constantly attested.



Reference from Answers in Genesis::