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




Concerning Accounts which are Never Paid

and Resolutions which are Readily Met

News 477

The Advertiser, August 11, 2014

See also Man in Retrospect, in Prospect and in Bold Relief  Ch. 2



In The Advertiser, August 11, 2014, we have an account of the dreamland of naturalism derived, by report, from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretic Physics in Canada, in a new fleeting fixture. That is in their attempt to deal with the woeful misanalysis of the so-called Big Bang hypothesis, they cast due disregard of the Big Bang imagination, or model, indicating it lacked the mathematics needed! That, it is no revelation, but it is an admission.

It is made in a report, a tout program for their new idea. It is in the pursuit of this that they indicate what is not often enough heard: the Big Bang concept is riddled with the ridiculous. This new idea has to pass the test. But it has failed it already, as all endeavours to make imagination the source of the universe, man's not God's, as if this in some way related either to logic or to the empirical or to the testable. Now if you do have an idea to explain something, and it does so well that there is no problem, and only confirmation and especially counterpart in other realms, phases, laws or causes, then well, it is worth a look.

Yet when you have


an infinitely compressed bit of stuff which
miraculously contains all that is needed for an explosion


to contrive the most magnificently miniaturised and
causally inter-connected contrivances imaginable, and


no reason for it all to have been so compressed,
or to have the power for such compression, and


the same lack of reason available to account 
for the meaning of explosion causing
the creative consequences apt for inspection
by the causatively probing mind of man,
and with this,


anti-verification in its repeated  breaches in matters of observation,
as in having far too much advanced construction near its imaginary beginning,
in terms of gathered galaxies, and
the wrong supernova configuration to match the model's expectations
(cf. That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 7), and what Hartnett calls


fudge factors, negative energy supplied by mind but not by any type of inspection,
and including a vast amount of dark matter
(cf. Dismantling the Big Bang pp. 14, 327-328),
and the mini-matter of vastly inadequate anti-matter
for the suppositious creation method from energy, or


any grounds for the energy in the first place, or


any grounds for its work to be of such a fine character,
legalised in framework and inspectability, in a creation which is yet


not a creation at all, but an invented piece of astronomical machinery
which is not caused by facts as basis, contradicts them freely,
and avoids all basic issues completely,
and which even on its own model is not old enough
for the degree of temperature conformity found in space and so on:

when, I say, you have this, you have problems. They are contortions and abortions based on efforts to  solve problems based on nothing, achieving nothing, fit for nothing, an affair in nothings, a whimsical piece of illustration of the degree of wilful confusion in which man, whether or not conscious of his flights, succumbs to dreams.

Thus it is not in the least surprising that the Big Bang is left like a former lover, stranded in the deserts of loneliness, a ludicrous invention from the first, with a singularity of infinite compression in a space already there or potentiated, time already there similarly, pressure and force already there, the power to do work and have causatively connected results already there, and what is an addition to the source, a vast compression which is to become on explosion a magnificent creation, the initial compression having no assignable basis, any more than the logic in terms of which it works, so that it can be logically worked over, however ruinously.

It is not even quite so pleasantly surprising to read of this divorce or alienation from the Big Bang big deception (whether or not the exponents realised this or admitted it even to themselves, caught up in its attractions as in some love affairs, for the moment), because it answered nothing of note, avoided everything of note, and simply begged the question of origins, by having it sitting there in a most organised fashion from the first.

What now ?

So now we are told of some imagined black hole which burps up the uncontainable in a spasm of creative frenzy ? not in those words, but it is a most creative belch, for all that! Not a complex congeries of extra things to explain, as the source this time, but a universe, wherever, whatever, possessed of belch power, of power to expel from a black hole a whole universe, explaining nothing any more than having a  million dollars invested in bonds explains either the bonds or the source of the million or the terms of reference, or the logical apparatus by means of which all these things are comprehensively connected. What is the cause of the million and of its characterisability as of its meaningfulness or capacities or purchasing power, and of the things to be purchased ? ALL whether in the million or the billions of stars, is in such a model unaccounted for, while the applications of this mode of creation, in the mind of man put gratuitously into the history of events without reason, relationship or ground, and avoiding all questions of groundings of the whole are taken for granted.


It is not a question of finding whether the stolen, the illegally imported, the smuggled in realities taken for granted, can do this or that on this or the other occasion. It is a question of getting it in the first place, and all the interstices of the highly organised causally connected whole, while ignoring the cause of its being at all, let alone in such magnificent and prodigal potential which also, like the rest, comes from nowhere. Moreover, nowhere by definition, does not exist.

It is rather like having a baby without a mother or father or system of genetics, or reproductive equipment, or reason by which such equipment could be connected meaningfully with results, nor energy for the event, nor desire which formulates itself, nor system, which allows such components, nor space nor time. It is not a little of a prodigy, a miracle when the miraculous is excluded, the most ultimate and intimate of self-contradictions available to man.



If you have to account for numbers, you do not do it logically by talking about sea-weed or sensations. Whatever applications these may provide, they are simply other topics. When you account for the universe (the one empirically found and to be explained, not something more or less or other - it is not as if you invent four murders to explain the one you find, when there is no sign of other death, and so with the reverse), it is not relevant to talk of having as this new idea does, a source in a world of expanded dimensions, or another kind of world, for that similarly ignores the point, avoids the empirical, invents the unmet, and begs questions.

Where did the dimensions come from, three or four or five ? where did the contents come from  ? and if a black hole, as now, is considered as a possible basis for a burp, a sudden expulsion from what is no more to be contained in it,  and this is seriously presented as a basis to explain our universe, where did the energy come from, where the power to eject, what the reason, where the mechanics of black hole absorption, its contents and its failure, where the vast concourse of events and elements, issues and procedures to have any kind of energic hole in the first place, or space, or time, or energy*1 for that matter, or reason so that it could act in the system as now postulated ? NOTHING is answered, and all this, as in the Big Bang, is much ado about nothing.

Matter, let us keep to scientific method for a little, has never been found to make itself from nothing. If it did, the laws of causality would be breached, but since it does so only in imagination, this breaks nothing except any sense of realism, or logical account of the point at issue: where did it all come from ? To have it from energy is frequently noted as requiring by scientific observation, balancing amounts or concordant quantities of anti-matter: not found. Is the empirical these days in some kind of scientific misnomer, to be disdained!



So what is never found, and contradicts the very laws of causality which are used in the construction of the theory, as operative and so able to be traced and used as a form of argument for the successive events, a flat self-contradiction, becomes the prodigy. Is this different from a giant turtle ? or fairies ? or tart farce for resting in compulsive mirth as a holiday feature to watch!

That is a serious question. Everything is assumed for all the dimensions of the start, to enable them to develop in the fulfilment of potential (also provided from the same nubilous source), with the wonders of intelligence, design (cf. Deity and Design ...), correlation, co-ordination, multiple layers of mutually operative systems (as in DNA), linguistic orders for the highest level of the creative process involved, and the creativity; and nothing is the origin of all.

This circumvents the question: where did it all come from ? Is a car to be said to have come from a form of dark matter which had ingenious powers to invent itself and organise and turning from pistons, find a way to lubricate them and so forth ? But you may well ask, where did the schema, the structure, the logical character of the operation resulting, the co-ordination and the creativity relative to an abundantly obvious purpose, come from SINCE this is NEVER seen in practice, EXCEPT for intelligence, imagination, mathematical skills, labour organisation and so on! 

One might ask, WHY do you imagine that bits of stuff which fit together are the results of other bits - bigger - which come from nowhere when it is obvious that this is not what happens, has ever been seen to happen, far less become a mode of constituting entire systems, from non-system and brilliant results from what is worse, as unintelligent, worse even than the worst of dullards!

Indeed, nowhere is not a site! or situation, or entity, from which anything in any way at any time has the facility to be contacted! Instead of nowhere, you need a source at every level and phase, for anything you envisage, as well as for everything, or else you do not explain empirical fact, but bypass this for the sake of some imaginative and absorbing tale, impossible by definition at the outset.

WHY work on ideas which are the opposite of what is ever found, which attribute powers never observed to what is never seen to possess them, and why disembark from logic in your 'explanations' to such effect, that the basis for your various imaginations, formed in your head and NEVER found outside it or the head of others in the vogue net, is avoided entirely, which was the whole question! Is it different from old myths which have dragons belch universes, or dreamers found cosmos ? In what way ? It violates what is found, assumes what is not, and makes a basis in what has no basis, in seeking to show the basis of all that is.

If this appeals to you, it makes a hobby. If you are logically involved, it does not make sense, but fails on all sides, a mere presumption into reality, clanging on shut doors.



There is however an open door, starting here with that of scientific method (Scientific Method  ..., cf. SMR pp. 140ff., TMR Chs.  1,  5,  7), and continuing with the simple procedures of logic, which works in this world, once you cease to disdain its source.

Since energy within the system is not the source of matter, and in any case, its self-making source before it is there, as that of the system, as that of the possible transformative powers, as of the logical sequential realities in view, all supplied by the Management without acknowledgement in the normal tunnel operation from the celestial city, all of this is simply a huge question begged, ignored, like the light of dawn when mood and drunkenness leaves no abode for reason: we come back to reality.

Internal energy in a system does not work, nor does it answer the question of origin. These are just grabs instead of explanations.

Energy however is necessary for work to be done, in a system, with rational prowess in the workers, such as mankind for example. Where do its several correlative power pockets come from ? Where does its very name and meaning come from ? and action ? Not internally, by irrational tunnelling, but from the source of the tunnel, truth. It does not arrive, having no source, but is eternal. What has systematically no source, has to be eternal; and if systematically you insist on the source, then it is nothing or what is adequate, the capacity to do work. Nothing has nothing rational or other to recommend it.

What is adequate having no other basis but the eternity back of the temporal, the logic back of the created kind, the power back of the created expositions of it, an eternal adequacy replacing a logical fallacy, which brings things on without ground or cause or explanation, in answer to the question of explanation: this then needs thought, as in SMR systematically.

Briefly, since it must be there and adequate, we can proceed to specify the minimal requirements on which logic insists. At this point, we may pursue the concept of eternal energy. Since there is energy and no other explanation, then the basis for all the computations, correlations, compositions of parts and unification of themes, and individualisation of not mere concepts but outputs in actuality, known as creations, and find, making discoveries.

Thus words in the form of physical laws, in the form of chemical laws, logically propoundable and empirically operative, in the form of astronomical constraints, in the form of DNA, in the additional form of corresponding parts of different governing methods in DNA, which jointly and synthetically do their exalted housework in conserving orders over generations, and in the input of logic itself as a tool that works in the universe that is tooled to match: this must be found back of the creation with unborn, eternal energy its source. That is simply the necessary status quo. It replaces getting something from nothing.

That latter unadmirable pursuit is done in various ways, such as making the infinitely compressed point with its pointless assumptions, merely making derivation of all our law and organisation the more difficult, even if it worked, or its mathematics could cope; or another universe with special features for making universes by a sort of gravitational vomit, an eruption from things so wonderfully made that they can even survive such gross treatment and then continue in their most fruitful and intellectually accountable way, saluting to reason, while bereft of it from the start. That is simply throwing words and concepts about like confetti, pleasant perhaps in some weddings, but with nothing systematic about it.

It is like saying this: What is the origin of an orange ? Oh, replies the savant, the orange tree. And what is the origin of this ? But of course, says the man, it was planted. And what is the origin of the plantable object ? Oh, don't ask silly questions, he says: I bought it.

In these endeavours quite simply to grab out of what is already there, via complicated sounding means which tend to disguise the appalling logic, what you want; and then imagine that for unknown reasons it has all you want, and will operate like a kind of plastic information service (gaining its information from the information source in the imaginary world): it is a story not a logical sequence, an intimation, not a derivation.

That is all quite irrelevant. The plantation owner BOUGHT his plants; and the universe-makes-universe owner of the privilege of imagination, in dropping the logical aspect, BUYS into what is there anyway, with more than this world has, since it is a base for its derivation. In doing this, you COMPLICATE the question of origins, through having it larger and higher; and for pure, lawless equivocation this matches any imagined political stunt, such as some engage in when they find means of power in systems which debase the meaning of man, in order to avoid the question of right government for him. Hence they ruin man by false logic, changing the terms of reference.

Leaving irrelevant bursts of Spring-time imagination which AVOID the question of origins by messing about with origins already there, we come back to the Eternal Energy plus imagination and logic, and all the other ingredients which characterise the working of the systematics of this earth and its persons.

Nor is it a witless ignoramus that is involved, as if having made space and stars were the equivalent for a Downes' syndrome status for the Maker by further excrescential follies of thought. We do not HAVE to think in opposites to the evidence, though it seems to have become almost a cultural tic. The requirements to requisition the mental, moral and spiritual powers of man as in any source, has more than the creation, as it takes more to make than just to be. He does not witlessly watch this prodigious output from energy and intelligence, directed work and labour and consider artlessly what to do next, as if He were part of system which left Him a shingle short on foresight.

The foresight for the provisions of hundreds of generations of man cannot be like that, since the opposite is attested in the work required for it. Further, any source for the universe in toto, cannot leave out in Himself what is found in His products, for the capacity which is in question would then be missing, and the account of origins defective.

It is the removal of the defective which is the point, as in the noted case, where all sorts of questions are asked concerning the investment of one million dollars, with no thought whatsoever to where it came from, as if this were too crude a question for any concern about origins. Then a book is written outlining where it all came from, dwelling extensively on this and that investment, and the reasons for appreciation and so on, but with never a mention of the source of it all. It is not unlike a comedy session, designed to make people laugh.

Laughing at God however, is not a wise occupation, since it is based on antilogy, pursued with solecism, enabled by irrationality and a short-circuit of realism. It is like jeering a public figure, for lack of any other emotional option. But why jeer ? IF a man wants to be a god, certainly his campaign of uncivil rights may be intense, but this is neither justification nor support for it. It will leave him in various ludicrous postures, as at death, where it is intensely ungodly to die as a competitor for control, on your own (cf. Ezekiel 28:9). It is better just to face the facts: that any wisdom or capacity for depth of thought or understanding in man, has per creator a far greater capacity exhibited, in the enablement of the same in a coherent world. Man is not a god.

God has been intensively operative in the language of DNA, so deft, its ways so miniaturising in operation, so intensive, multi-layered with such astonishing clever modes of vocabulary for practical purposes; and has not in a fit of ungoverned folly made man for millenia of operation with an intensive thrust of sheer power of mind and means for it, such as matter, which yields in many ways to its operation, though as another creation not for man without bounds to its manipulation: in order to yield to sudden loss of concentration. If He were subject to such intrusions and derelictions, limits, He would not be the source, since limits require imposition, and laws and provisions require a source, and this IS the source itself, which is in view.

What then did God do for the intelligent creation, such as man, having made it with wisdom and power and language and linguistic power itself, indeed, in pre-formatted potential potencies which grow as they go, on set forms and in set formats ? He spoke to the mind as He had spoken for the body, and in His formulations, made provisions for the equipment suitable for mind. He could have set inside man a set of instructions which would come automatically at a certain time, by virtue of sophisticated programmatics; but in this field, man is capable of rebellion and self-affirmation, being a highly special creation, and such internalisation could become a limit undesired for his liberty. God has done what fits the case, namely caused a book to be written which in principle, paradigm, precept, proposition and exposition, with many means of identification indicated, such as prophecy and the scope of it all laid down in advance (cf. SMR Chs. 8 and 9 and index).

Thus man has a book within to make him physically and a book outside to instruct him mentally and direct him spiritually, but with no robotic style control, as if by breathing or other limit, to MAKE him read it, do it, follow it, or find to what it is pointing, as a map points to treasure.

Eternal energy is merely one of the features of the Creator; eternity itself is the way He exists, and what He is you see by both His word and His works. It is called salvation and its practical source sent from Eternity, is Jesus Christ (cf. The Magnificence of the Messiah, SMR Ch. 6 and Index).

Why then is there horror ? because man is not programmatic in spirit. He can kick either his heels or others.

Why was he not made programmatic in spirit ? Because that is not personality, but robotic in type. Why was he given personality ? One reason is this: without that measure of freedom, love has no meaning. No one can be commanded to love someone else, in terms of close and intimate delight, for it is either there or not. You CAN be commanded to love in the sense of having sensitive regard for others as for yourself, but the marital kind of regard, the friendship sub-type, this and force are poles apart. If you want this, you have to have liberty enough to apply it. It is the same with love of ideas, and operations, and facets and functions in nature or anywhere else. Orders and love are not the same. You do not gain one by the other.

So man, being so made, used his liberty and this being great in a great world, so that he could doubt, ignore, detest, label, libel,  scoundrelise God if this appealed, even equate Him with the devil in blatant and preposterous cases (the devil being a limited being, like bacteria, for full operation needing something to invest). This mood, mode and muddle in man  had a beginning, like most declines, and it has an end. It becomes, like atrial fibrillation, all but impossible to cure; except by miracle.

God being present not only in creation, but in restoration, this pathological condition in the spirit and life and heart of man is often cured; more often this option is ignored, or cultures arise in order to subdue reality into tyrannical substitutes, whether this tyranny is wrought by strict cultural rules, irrational popularists or by savvy operators for life by misused power, systematically, as is often found in places with absolute sway by some over others, like the Communist case or that of some false religions, based on appeal exploited.

When the disease is cured, it is in terms of the Book of Instructions, of the Word of God who spoke to man, as well as in him. In terms of the book of instructions, there is one cure for one creation called man, and that is the Man who by incarnation from eternity came to invest the very format of man that He might do in it, for man, what was needed (cf. Philippians 2). Instead of leaving exploitation by man of the property made and dowered on him, including that of man over man, as a final folly for judgment or extinction, God accordingly sent from Himself His eternal word to cover the costs of repair, of justice, of ruin, by bearing all of this for any who seeks recovery, reclamation and regeneration, and paying it in the coin of life, freely given to death as sacrifice (cf. Titus 2-3). Some don't want God, or instructions (except those by which they are made in the first place, in his generation in DNA), and so do not accept this remedy.

Just as he cannot be born without the instructions of DNA, so he cannot live with God and according to His creation and functionalities for him, without those instructions concerning his state and need, and the divine provision made for it. As most nevertheless try to do just this, the jumble and mockery, the folly and tragedy, the remorseless misapplied religious intensity ( cf. Department of Bible ... Vol. 5, Ch. 9, Appendix, Things Old and New, Chs.  2,  5Appendix) is found growing like a lash, instead of the path to the cure in Christ Jesus.

Hence millions foul the works, increase the judgment, spoil the world, their own hearts, the plight of those on whom they prey, and slaughter as if this were either a method of creation or of solution. Its sheer perversity is staggering, but it shows the extent of sin, and the profundity required for its solution.

As it had to have a beginning, all of it, from what itself, did not have a beginning, so in its state, it has an end, like many another disease. There is a terminus as Christ indicated (Matthew 24:14), and like the beginning, it will be personal (cf. Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15ff., Matthew 22:1-4). Rejection of the remedy thus liberally provided means persistence of the disease which then becomes wilful, and not merely woeful, leading to judgment (cf. Amos 4, Revelation 19-20, John 3:19,36). Many want the UN to intervene in this or that calamity; and their desire is great, however often it is not met. It is God Himself who will intervene as He has often done, but at length finally (cf. Department of Bible Volume 7).

You see these personal and terminal matters in such sites as:

Amos 4:11-13, Isaiah 24, John 5:19-30,

with singularity, not the daft but the deft kind, the work and word of the Maker, as in

Acts 4:11-12, and specific coverages as in Romans 11,
and stark contrasts as in John 3:16 and 3:36.

Many may say, This world is like a merry-go-round, and I want to get off.

You can die ... but there is an escape from its whirling, twirling, confused cohorts of evil, and personal assaults to the spirit; and it is found where man was founded, not a foundling but a feature and focus of the Eternal, when He created this particular locale called the universe (which He  plans to remove in due course, as in Isaiah 51:6, Matthew 24:35, Revelation 20-21, II Peter 3). That is through the One whom the Father sent (as in Isaiah 48:15ff., Hebrews 1-2), His personal expression to  perform the cure, institute the covenant in His blood (cf. Ephesians 1, Matthew 26:28-30), so providing a new way, life spiritually from the dead, from what may appear relatively meaningless meandering off-paths, to the Way of the Lord (John 14:6). This way is not only for the present but for what is to come, and will in due course according to plan, program and purpose of God, be in body as well (I Corinthians 15).

So it is, for He knows what He has made, what He wants to do with it, and knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), being not at all short on plan or purpose or procedure or capacity to implement or vision or victory. You don't even find experiments in discarded DNA strewn about the earth. From first to last, the class is there.

As to that One, named Jesus the Christ (the sent Messiah with this mission as in Isaiah 52-53 in salvation and Revelation 19 and Psalm 2 in later judgment): just as the human body is ONE type, so He is ONE Person poured into it, through incarnation in the womb, and has made one sacrifice (so terribly simple numerically,  in mathematics) to cover the case, for those in the ONE human race who confess the ONE folly of sin and find the ONE solution in sacrifice in Him, and thus in ONE kind of restoration to Him, may freely live in friendship, love and mercy, with Him.

Wise are they who wait daily at His doors, and find in Him the missing link to love and truth and pardon and peace and power and purity and destiny (cf. Proverbs 8:32-36, John 14:6).

God did not abort His word. It is man who is inclined to do so. Abortion has a sense of abrupt departure; and contortion has a sense of devious or wriggling evacuation. Conversion with repentance has not ceased to be the divine prescription (Luke 13:1-3), and insistence on your own home-made medicines remained an ultimate in evasion, as if medicine depended on an infant. It is ordained, like man, for man, and it is not a matter for man, who has sinned, except in its reception (John 1:1-14).




Man in his Oddity and God in His Glory:

Neither conference or remonstrance is needed, but repentance.

Some prefer to reason and causal necessity, casual concepts of big bangs, dismissed as if they were never much good, in a moment of truth exercise, or big universes, introduced without a hesitancy, even after the latest fiasco, as if size rather than infinite compression, were to be the new palliative to massage out of nothing (with no-one to massage) some beginning. Make it large ? make it small ? make it short, make it long, make it of great duration, make it of disastrous destructiveness, having got it from nowhere, make it a matter of  vying monstrosities, and call it myths, and have it with every convenience and luxury, like causality, or more spartan, just a matter of simmering or shimmering along for no reason with no basis or origin, but just an inclination to stick around, and to have 'arisen', that ultimate in unscientific sprawl: and what have you ?

It is just something for no reason out of no base or basis. How long does it take to grow into reality ? Nothing does not produce; what is already produced cannot be a product without a  producer, and what is not already produced or producer, is not there. Is it really so very hard!

Instead of gamboling about with the early Greeks, who also had rather similar ideas of trying to make everything come from some component of what is here, as if that did not have its own necessities and originating causality to contend with, far less have the capacity to be what it is not, and convert to what is nothing like it, by means unknown and never seen, and contrary to what is seen (cf. Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13), it is necessity to stop day-dreaming and consider reason and reasons, testable reality and non-self-contradictory construction.

You quite simply cannot have anything from nothing, and if you want something as the source, beginning, basis, reason, cause of all that is and so forth, then it does not remove your dilemma by being named; for it faces the same problems. It merely has more to do, the further back you go, and no place to get it. You have no logical option but to start with what is not started, make eventuation flow from capacity, creation to flow from imagination, which we have and know and use and to which we are accustomed in terms of what it is and what it does; and indeed we even experience it.

If you do not choose to do so, you are facing total irrationality. The antics for some millenia of trying to get the start from some part, ignoring the totality of which the part is part and its observable facility in being what it is, and not what it is not, constituted and not a creator of all sorts of things, as if it had wings and mentality were physicality: these are an indictment of the human race, as Paul makes so plain in Romans 1-3.

It is also an explanation of what is wrong with it, since EVEN WITH wars of stunning magnitude, devastation of appalling scope, cruelty of intensive mania, wastage of resources of all but inconceivable dimensions, infesting with evil and investing with ruin as in radioactivity, just as a more permanent menace: with all this and far more. this race is still here! It is no glory for it. It is glory to the amazing endurance facilities provided both for it internally and environmentally, which did not come out of nothing, we remind ourselves, since that does not exist, nor have any power, import, future or being. Nature did not, because it could not, make itself before it was there to do it. Like every other visible thing in our universe, it required a cause for its being, other than a bit of the thing as already caused.

So having a bike pedal does not produce a bike, far less a rider who thinks. Far less does it produce space and time, or does any contrivance or bit make the environment of terms and truth of which it is a configured part.

Nor can you remove the concept of causality and try to account for it, for in doing so you use it, so begging the question.

Once you get over the fever of fabrication, like a builder who is not there trying to build a suburb which is not there, with funds which are not there, and imagination which he does not have: then you can begin to think - this instead of having idle dreams, and perceive, instead of telling all things how they did not come to be, based on what you do not know, and what contradicts what you do.

Thus the eternal creative intelligence, neither bounded nor hounded, but who He is, self-defined and uncontained  by any delimiting constraints, engaged in acts of creation, such as that of time in our serial mode,  when He so desired; and He stopped when He so desired that too. That is why you find the terms for life suddenly, empirically, appearing on the scene in the past, as they do not now. That is why, as we know in our own lives and experience in type, they started and then stopped. That is the norm, as of yore, and it continues to be so now.

 Man has been created with creativity likewise, and can twiddle with the works, or seek to turn one part against another, or against his fellow men, in a way not so entirely brilliant or thoughtful or prescient or wise; he is given power, not to institute universes from nowhere, before he is there - that is not a coherent proposition, but to use some of the powers inherent in this one to flirt with folly or achieve some advance in some area of his expertise, susceptible to this. He has choices dependent on powers, and how they correlate with other powers around him.

He is continually (or the false dreaming part of the population) trying to find some way of avoiding God, the uncreated eternal being without whom nothing could ever have been, be explained, or be subjected to coherent thought. He continually fails to do this, since it is impossible;  and as with the Big Bang, seems to get over the fever of one kind, in the end, provided there is some other dream of the same irrelevance, irrationality and misuse of terms, available with which to be pre-occupied before the judgment comes.

God has arisen, that is stirred, to make the race, and the race has stirred, that is codified in this case, contradictory concepts, to abuse God and make himself great; for after all, what are mere train robberies, for which Biggs was so famous, compared with universe robberies! The stakes are high, and there is much to be grabbed by philosophic heist or immoral misuse.

There are many stages of desolation invented by man, just as you can destroy your lungs by wilfully making them the parallel of an industrial site, or your psyche by drugs, or your talents by hiding them. There is however one kind of thing which is creation: whether this be partial, as when man uses limited powers to make remarkable leaps into fields he invents, but does not endue with reality, or even into some which already endued with reality, have a plasticity and responsiveness sufficient for him to delight himself in the exploitation of the same; or whether it is of a greater type from a greater source. Man is no pinnacle, except by some comparisons; even a mast did not make the ship. What then of the broader creation, by contrast.

In the latter case, you have a composed creation without limits, except the will of the Creator. The creation of material-mental-spiritual-moral beings, in a setting of environments of many kinds, all graded and inter-related, some malleable, like thought, some fixed, like certain material laws (but not beyond their Maker),  is simply an act, like that of an artist, but this one, without limit.

As is comprehensively understandable for such a case, it starts and stops. It is flung out like a canvas, as space, thrust into time dimensions, and causal conditions, both internal (within its interactive proficiencies) and external (as when the Maker intervenes with power to do this or that to His possession, without destroying it - as a child might do with a toy, or a wise man with a painting). It then exists, upheld by His power and whatever created laws of maintenance He saw fit to instal during the creation episode. It is good to follow the evidence allowing for precise application with verifiable facts, like starting and stopping, with coherent reasons for this, as in the Creation mode.

Once you visit reason, and find the Creator, removing the obliterative thrust against God, which the Bible designates in Romans 1, with the perfectly simple example on our own small scale when we invent, as depicting the kind or character of what is in view in creation, so that we do not have to invent some bizarre story of things that cannot be, instead reverting to what is already shown in type, at the ground floor, in the functionalities of our own minds, rather hard to ignore: then perspective begins to dawn.

Does an artist make each painting from another, to save paper ? Of course not. Creations have their own lustre, force, significance and charm (if good ones! man is not infallible). To twiddle and force this way and that, and adjust, using some initial work of art, that is a perspective for pain more than gain!

Such procedures as that make a mess and involve much structural change and purification of the paper, as to be largely laughable. Does a car manufacturer take his Volkswagen, as small, to make a Boeing jet, as large, by painstaking steps, lest the far easier way of using the principles of design to make each of them separately, with only conceptual similarity in part,  should occur ? or does he seek to turn the little elements at one plane,  into something quite different from the start, lest perhaps imagination should forsake him! Rather does he have a vision for each and a way and thought pattern to cover any, and proceed with logical coherence in each case, often using similar concepts, with consummate skill and application.

What is generally FOUND in this department in its available spread,  is the latter, and that for very good reason, in the general thrust of things. We do not have time or need to fuss so foolishly in transformations, in our thrusts from bike to motor bike to car to train to aircraft to space-ship. Each is constructed with creative purpose and participation, whether options in other formats be many or few. The enormity of prodigious adjustments and inward inputs and outward exclusions in the compositions would involve a degree of complexity of incomparable burden.

Instead, each as a norm relates to common principles, and some evoke more than others of these, while  diversities and convergences are routine; but the imagination and the depth and the purpose and the starting and the stopping, all like a railway, have point and purpose for this or that reason, at this or that time.

That is what is found, as one might expect, Denton pointing out that continuity in nature*2, as distinct from separability of distinct living beings, exists only in the mind of man. Micro-biologically the clear message is particular distinctiveness without mergers. Thus many types exist from near the first, without kind change, and are visible as such, while as Gould pointed out in his Wonderful Life, designs of basic scope were far more evident, more numerous, earlier than they are now, in nature. As Professor J. C. Sanford of Cornell confirms in his work,  Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, the human genome, for example, is busily declining as copy errors mount. Degeneration is what happens in general, when creation eended, generation is long finished.

This is independent verification, and the failure EVER to see or find or watch or stir or stimulate the information donation found in nature's living members, to make the types, and the evanescent  nature of such a concept apart from its absence, meet together with logic to create a triumvirate of realism, without dreams. Input and output do relate. Ignoring this is the work for fairies, but strictly only in the imagination.

That the mental follies of man (some people like follies, and might even call some of their productions follies in some sense of a stirring extravanganza, but you DO still have to pay for and invent them), in his fantasies seeking to avoid creation, are inexcusable is clear, for it breaches all logical coherence and causal connection, like the sea breaching a Dutch polder. In turn, the absence of evidences of such efforts or non-efforts on the model!  in the arena of living things, on the part of the forbidden constructor, from the littoral of time in terms of life, makes the contra-evidential concepts of stabs in the dark, the worse, like tar on an unfilled examination paper.

It is as if someone or something were supposedly trying to make it work (or even no one! with no idea of what it was), and yet did not fail in botched specimens, but handed out uniform brilliance, as paralleled in the evidence of the sophisticated first cells, as Denton again points out.  This null antilogy fails in thought as in things wrought. It is quite simply, not so. Competence and power are required for the products demonstrating it. Lonely meaninglessnesses do not figure in this sort of company.

The consequences of imaginative concerns which try to remove the power and purpose and thrust and capacity what we have and are, whether in biology or historiography, in things large or small, brilliant in mathematics or perspicuous in engineering:  these too exist. If you insist that your father did not provide the house of the family, but that an ogre make it, or a non-ogre when the ogre wasn't looking, with a view to making him look small and you big, there will be results.

Their nature depends on the actual owner.

The results in all this series of more or less dreams, with more or less extravanganzas, and pitfalls here or there (cf. Department of Bible Vol. 7), which makes up an ideational population over history, are not definable in the sense that a deep wound to the middle of the skull may be. There is the Creative Eternal Being in view; and since He made us and not vice versa (it is too late by far for man to try to claim that he himself made the universe, though some may), it is not for us to image or imagine what results might come.

That being so, it is good that He has told us, as seen earlier, and that He puts these explanations into a investigble setting which, unlike the dreams, is both testable and verified on every side, its validity likewise attested*3. We were free (how free we can be and sometimes are in the flights of thought and understanding), and misused the power (Genesis 3, Romans 5). The race as one whole, though not exhaustively, still does so.

There was first of all a test;  man failed. Then a penalty, and man met it in almost numberless ways, simmering or boasting in various laments, complaints, aggressions, against one another, against almost anything, not unlike a spoilt child, or a wild one. A REFUSAL of what is necessary often has such results, extremities arising from adventurism mingled with fury or scorn or hatred or insistence or persistence or resistance. The field is very open, since man is very creative.

The old-fashioned term for bad behaviour as "creating" is rather interesting here!

It is not impossible origins, but possible conclusions which are the major subject of concern. It is not unfeasible ways of life which bring endless new symphonies of death (like communism and militant Islam, now as earlier in some ways, or the ways of the Four Empires of Daniel, each appointed a predicted time and place in a given sequence) which is the need; but feasible, rational, realistic, Maker-related ones which have the additional advantage of following the instructions. It is not only in manufactured items that the mirthful can arise: What do you do next ? someone asks. Why not read the instructions!  comes the reply.

Do not blame the maker of your device for wilful ignorance on your part, of what he has to say to guide you in the use of the appliance!

The wonder of the Gospel is this: that God did not merely weigh out Nuremburg type sentences, but gave a procedure for repentance, rather than mere remorse, faith, rather than mere opinion, release rather than mere conditions, redemption from the woeful and disorderly effects of sin-breeding-death, resurrection from the onset of highly disruptive death, this given, like the Creation, its TIME. He was even given a MAN, sent from eternal spiritual reality into the womb of a woman, to personally achieve the conditions for pardon with the power of the Maker of law, to meet any or all of its negative impact, so making provision for man to be free, like someone with his mortgage paid, and to enjoy the company, companionship, friendship and wisdom of his God.

Dreams have their place. Living life is not one of them.





It is like a heist, a theft without acknowledgement. HAVE the energy, the capacity to do work, and then use it in your theory. WHERE did it come from ? what kind of work does it do ? The answer, universe kind of work. What does it need to do this, logical ordering of both 'nature' and the mind of man to match and meet it and account for it and things in it. Where did the energy get the logic, and the paralleling power to put it into minds and their investigation grounds, into the physical and the mental, and where did it find power to have itself formulated and criticised, and shown invalid as a self-sustaining system, being without logical and assigned basis ?

If it did not come, but was just there, then you have eternal energy with universe-making power. If it did come, where did it come from, not only with the high degree of skill logically to be assigned in terms of its overall results (including the incapacity to have matter come from energy in terms of known observations) ? if then it is eternal, so that the lack of ground for it, is met by the simple grounding of other things in it, with all the pertinent powers of reason, realisation and revelation which are part of the empirical whole, how does this differ from a slow and arduous method of going back to the Eternal Creator, who had the intelligence, the logic, the imagination, the input, the DNA ordering mind and the constructive power in organising lower levels such as matter, as He willed ?

And that brings us back to SMR and the simple logical realities, and to TMR,  in Ch.1, and the simple scientific method realities, and to the need for explanations which have no contradiction with empirical fact, explaining in the light of reason, not only the things left dark by materialistic meandering (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9), and its reliance on the formulations of mind and their validity for its very existence, but the reason for their violating scientific method in explaining what is not found with what is itself a foundling, a flurry of imagination in a sky that is strangely present, where thought even more strangely penetrates, and no is never the answer.




Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 353, has this to present, and indeed it forms a major part of the thesis in the book.

"The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man,
never in the facts of nature."



On verification and validation see the following, for example.

TMR    5 7 , It Bubbles ... Ch.    9, esp. *1A,
The Bright Light
Repent or Perish, Ch.  7, pp. 152ff.; Ch.   2;
 Christ, the Wisdom ... Ch.   6; BAB 29,  19;
A Spiritual Potpourri Chs.  1-3;  SMR   3,   
Little Things
  Wake Up World! ... Ch.  5, End-Note 1A,
Tender Times ... Ch. 11;

Barbs ... 2919;  

TMR Epilogue, News 94;  DDRAMA 4,
Grand Biblical Perspectives   7,
SMR  pp. 146, 271, 295, 422C, 1138;
TMR 9, Grand Biblical Perspectives Ch.   7,
What is the Chaff to the Wheat!  Chs. 3, 4, 10, 11
Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Chs.   3, *3,