 
### Factual Faith – Belief Founded on Truth

By Jaco Prinsloo

Smashwords Edition

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

Jaco Prinsloo at Smashwords

Factual Faith - Belief Founded on Truth

Copyright © 2012 by Jaco Prinsloo

Dedicated to all the people of the earth in search of the Truth.

Isa 43:9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.

All scripture taken from the Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611. Based on the 1962 edition of the American Bible Society.

# Introduction

Have you ever stopped to think whether information that you have just received from a friend, from someone you've just met, from a family member, or even something you've just heard over the news, is 100% true and trustworthy? Have you ever been in a situation where two different individuals gave you the same basic information, but where the content differed slightly between the two accounts? How did that make you feel? Can you know whether the information has been altered in any way? Did the people have ulterior motives? Did they intend to leave you with a specific perspective? How do you go about determining whether the differences in accounts by individuals on the same topic has to do with their interpretation of the data, or whether they actually believe what they are saying?

Have you ever witnessed a minor motor vehicle accident and heard both parties agreeing 100% on what happened? I doubt it. The question to ask is, if it is so easy to mislead or twist the truth, can you ever be sure of anything? If we find it difficult to identify the truth in concrete subject matter, what about abstracts like faith? This is a subject devoid of physical sensory perception and establishing the truth of spiritual subject matter, is probably the most difficult of all.

Have you ever wondered how you can know that what you believe is really the truth? What does it mean to believe? According to Eric Schwitzgebel, human belief is said to be the psychological state in which an individual decides to hold a proposition or premise as being true.1

Have you considered whether your beliefs are based on your emotions, or have you decided to adopt a specific belief blindly following a tradition? What role did the media play in what you hold as true today? Is it even possible to determine whether or not what you believe is accurate and true? Are you able to discern who is right and who is wrong with so many contradictory opinions floating around? Is there any way in which you can tell?

My aim in this book is to demonstrate to you how it is possible to obtain absolute certainty of the truth, when it comes to spiritual matters. My desire for you as you read, is that you will come to new insights about this subject and - if you have ever doubted the reality of the spiritual - that you will realise that it is the one subject in which one can have 100% confidence of it being factual and true.

I approach this subject in the following way:

Firstly, we consider the aspects that influence our thinking. People have different views about various subjects and our thinking have been influenced by several identifiable aspects. Why is that and why would people have varying opinions on the same subject?

Secondly, we look at how science is used by people to get behind the crux of a matter. We also expose some ideas that are accepted by the scientific community and the population in general as the truth for which there is no substantiating "scientific evidence". In fact, for some "scientific truths", there is evidence to the contrary mounting.

Thirdly, we consider the spiritual and supernatural aspects of life and look at how it is possible, from a human perspective, to evaluate these subjects scientifically. We investigate the supernatural qualities of the Bible which in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts demonstrate qualities of extraordinary design that can only be attributed to supernatural inspiration by someone existing outside of our dimensionality.

Finally, having access to this hidden knowledge, would you choose to investigate the subject further or to ignore it? How would you respond to this knowledge – conveying "Absolute Truth" and God's love for you?

# Chapter 1: So many Viewpoints

Today, there are close to 7 billion people living on planet Earth, consisting of a variety of nations.1 Each having communities comprising unique individuals of different cultures, tastes and habits. We see how people have adapted to their environment and how their lives are influenced, subtly guided and moulded by various perspectives around them. We know that a person's values and behaviour, a society's unique culture, or a nation's position and standing in the world, did not develop overnight. People's belief systems and that of their societies are formed over extended periods of time and influenced by various factors. When considering a person living in a family unit – as part of a community or society – we can easily identify different facets that would play a role in shaping who and what that person will become. We see how society influences the way you think about life in general as you grow up, but also how you are moulded and shaped as a result of the impact of people around you. These influences come from various sources.

Barbara and Philip Newman constitute that factors can be external in the form of the environment, or caused by situations that one has to deal with on a daily basis. It could be the social situations in which you find yourself and the social pressure of your peers. The influence could also be internal - your emotional status, health and lifestyle which may affect how you think about life and the world. Some influences could shape you over an extended period of time, like a family tradition, going back decades or even centuries and it could determine how you interact with people. Other circumstances could have an impact on you over a short period of time, like a tragedy in the family. Even the media presenting a trendy new fashion, could shape the way in which you would interact with peers, based on new fashionable trends that are promoted through the media. This in turn would even help you to distinguish yourself from other people.2

In some cases, according to Gary Ferraro, where people have adapted to harsh environments, the knowledge passed down from previous generations will aid in the survival of a new generation and would be considered essential. This could include knowledge on survival in extremely hot or cold climates, how to find food and to preserve it for times when there is little to none available. Parents living in these conditions would teach their children everything they have learned from their parents and through their own experience, in order to prepare them for life. This is a necessary prerequisite for surviving in certain environments. If you put a person, who lacks the knowledge that some of these people groups have accumulated over centuries, in a situation where they would have to survive without it, they may find it extremely difficult to cope, or even survive.3

Tim Kasser shows how life could be easy in affluent situations. Here children are provided for in luxury by their parents. They live pampered and comfortable lives, free from the cares of physical survival. Here, the society they live in, does not require focus on staying alive. Taking care of the basics like food, clothing and a roof over their heads would be considered "worries of the poor". Nonetheless people living in these societies may perhaps struggle to survive emotionally. They often do not have the same emotional attention, focus or care from their peers, as would be the case in societies that are less materialistic and more "people-focused". A materialistic society would not apply its strategy for survival on extracting knowledge from the previous generation. Where people rely on their finances and position to supply their every need, they do not perceive the environment to be any threat to their existence. They would rather focus their efforts towards improving their position and status and could be competing with their peers on a materialistic level. This might include owning brand items, trendy designer clothes promoted by the media, or moving up a corporate ladder - always aiming for the top position.4

Whether it is life in the city, rural areas, seashores or jungles, or even the arctic region, each of these environments will require specific perspectives and abilities from its inhabitants. The people around us and the information we share with our peers and parents help shape us. It affects how we fit into our community, how we relate to others, the way we think about things and ultimately, the person we become during our lifetime on Earth.5 Our personalities, the interaction with our environment and our peers form the foundation for cultural development. Cultures all over the world have been shaped over millennia. As knowledge accumulated and technology improved, the ability to deal with life, in specific locations on Earth, also blossomed and advanced. Although some of the cultures have similar traits, others are very distinct and have particular and unique.

Charles F. Gritzner states that personality types found within specific communities also play a major role in shaping views and beliefs. If we compare countries like Mexico and Japan, we will notice distinct differences related to people's personalities. In Mexico people tend to value the importance of social interaction. People living in Latin America would be considered passionate, driven by their emotions - they highly value personal relationships with their family and peers.6

In Japan on the other hand, people would focus on being the best at what they do, their honour, meeting their commitments and not failing in anything they attempt. Although their interactions with others would require certain etiquette, their priorities would in general not be as focused on social interaction, as is the case with people from Mexico. The Japanese people would spend more time per day studying or working to achieve the best possible position in their career, because failing to focus on these aspects, may bring shame and social rejection to you and your family. Mexicans' personalities, together with most Latin Americans, would contain on average more people with Sanguine personality types, while the people living in Japan, would on average have more people with Melancholic personality types.7 These qualities are neither right nor wrong, but they shape and influence their thought patterns throughout life. All of these factors combined, contribute to the person that we become, living within a specific society with particular traditions and a historical heritage, and ultimately what we believe.

Some viewpoints are formed on a purely personal level. Here an individual would form his (all subsequent references must be understood to refer to he/she and his/her) own viewpoint based on his own thoughts, personal experiences and the knowledge he gained on physical, emotional and spiritual levels. His exposure to education would also affect his thought processes. (It may not always be a positive influence, as we will demonstrate later in this book.)

Aiden Wilson Tozer found in his research on Japanese culture that no matter where one finds oneself on Earth or whoever one encounters, all people seem to have a built-in need to worship someone or something. Whether it be god/s, man-made idols, ancestral spirits, angels, nature, historic people, or even themselves, there seems to be a natural tendency in human beings to find an object to worship.8

The Yanomami Indians live in small communities in the forests of Venezuela and Brazil. Their lifestyle does not require much in the form of clothes or earthly possessions. They live simple lives and are dependent on the rainforest and their vegetable gardens for food, so they spend a substantial amount of time each day hunting and gathering food. They have an abundance of water with showers falling almost on a daily basis. Food sources are also supported by fertile soil and providing food for the family would not be considered a challenge. Their families are their most valuable asset and they focus on strengthening the bonds between families through arranged marriages. They live in small villages that are scattered throughout the rainforest. The size of these villages could be anything from a few people to as many as 300. Their skills and abilities are passed on through generations and this allows them to maintain and improve on the experience, gained over hundreds of years. Threats to their existence include attacks from other villages, which may be a few days walk away, or attacks from the outside world that could destroy their environment. They also have to fend against wild animals and insects in the jungle as well as the diseases that they may transmit. Through their experience over years they have learned how to deal with these issues and survive with ease.

The Yanomami people's traditions are shaped by the belief that the natural and spiritual world is a unified force; nature creates everything and it is considered sacred. They believe that their fate and the fate of all people are inescapably linked to the fate of the environment and that with the destruction of nature, humanity is actually committing suicide. Each village would normally have a shaman as a spiritual leader. These people were living isolated lives in the rainforests of the Amazon, cut off from the outside world, till there was a gold rush in the 1980s.9

The Inuit tribes of the Arctic, another tribal community, distinctly different from the tribes living in the Amazon rainforests, survive. These people live in some of the coldest and harshest parts of the Earth, including the north-eastern tip of Siberia, the islands of the Bering Sea, the coastal regions of mainland Alaska, parts of Greenland and the northern coastal regions of Canada. Traditionally, these people also lived isolated from the rest of the world and had to sustain themselves by means of hunting. Whether it was walruses, whales, seals or caribou, their nomadic existence would be closely linked to their food sources.

Until relatively recently, they would have had to follow their source of food and move with migrating animals to survive. Living in extremely harsh conditions, would have been fatal if they did not prepare for the elements they would have to face during a hunt or when they moved over land or sea to set up camp close to their food source. It is also believed that in centuries past, people who became a burden to Inuit tribes - the elderly and even infants with defects, would have been murdered in times of starvation to allow the survival of the strongest in the tribe. In some cases old and sickly tribe members would even willingly sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the tribe. The entire village would then attend the suicide procedure, where the victim would be dressed, wearing his clothes inside-out.

The Inuit's traditional beliefs are filled with mythological tales of adventurous walrus and whale hunts. The long winter months that they had to endure, gave rise to tales of fantastic creatures and ghosts miraculously appearing. Inuit people are superstitious and try to find the faces of their dead in the Aurora Borealis, or northern lights. Children are even taught that if they whistled at the Lights, it would fall down and cut off their heads. They also believe that their diet consists of the souls of the animals they kill; therefore they believe that it should be done with the utmost respect for the animal and in such a way that the soul of the animal would not avenge its death. The Inuits believe that they constantly have to appease the supernatural to live a normal day-to-day life, free from streaks of bad luck through which entire communities could be wiped out.10

The tribes mentioned above, come from totally different backgrounds and have adapted to very different environments, with all the associated risks involved. They have lived isolated lives for many years and yet, as all other people living on Earth, hold to very specific views when it comes to the spiritual or the supernatural.

Have you ever considered this question: Why do people hold spiritual beliefs and why are we different from animals? Animals may display behaviour in the form of submission to other animals or to humans, but nothing that we could define as communication with spiritual entities or acts of worship. On Earth we as humans seem to be unique in both the need to worship, as well as the ability to worship a higher spiritual being.

There are more than 10,000 distinct religions or beliefs in the world today.11 What you believe, will be among the myriad of different beliefs and viewpoints that people hold about who we as human beings are. Our past, our present and our purpose on Earth and what will happen to us after we die forms an integral part of who we are. Being thinking beings with the ability to conceptualise, we can utilise information we remember from our past, to plan ahead. We have the ability to think about the future and ask questions about anticipated future events. At some point the questions that everybody seeks answers to, will naturally surface: What happens to me when I die? Where do I go when I die? Where did I come from? and What is my purpose on Earth while I am alive?

The dilemma is that it has become almost impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is not. In recent years, relativism and the disappearance of absolutes have slowly crept into popular mainstream thinking and philosophy.12 No longer are absolutes proposed on any matter, but rather a personal interpretation of the information as it is experienced by the person considering a specific subject. People are expected to interpret information in such a way that it allows them to come up with their own "truth" on any matter. This essentially becomes a biased emotional interpretation of any issue, whether it be valid or false, purely based on the perception of the viewer, rather than factual evidence. This principle is especially applied to issues of morality, where physical evidence is not always readily available. Where grey areas over issues exist, where it is difficult to clearly distinguish between "right" and "wrong", the view of the majority is normally accepted as "true" or "valid".

In today's world most societies will classify people, who clearly define right and wrong, as old-fashioned, fundamentalists or bigots, just because they maintain a specific viewpoint which may now have been labelled out-dated by the majority, who have now adopted a new or revised viewpoint. It has become socially unacceptable to have a fundamentalist standpoint on any subject these days, even if any opposing viewpoint would have shocked the world a decade or two ago. Everyone is encouraged to interpret a subject, based on their own experiences in life and their view of the world around them. They must find answers that best address their questions and if theirs match the majority view, great! People are told that what is true for one person, may not be true for the next. What is unacceptable behaviour for one person may be totally acceptable for another.

In some countries, legislation has even been put in place that makes it a criminal offence to belong to specific groups that hold views, which are seen as opposing that of the majority. In these instances a paradigm shift occurred. The same, previously accepted views are now labelled as hate crimes. It is also interesting to note that a tendency has arisen over the past few decades that would favour the view of the majority over that of minority groups. 13 With this difficulty of discerning between right and wrong, having also to deal with social pressures and acceptance from peers, how would you then go about identifying a specific belief to choose from? How would you go about seeking out and finding a belief that will not leave you with empty promises and a life's worth of sacrifices and rituals which will turn out to have all been in vain?

If you are destined for an eternity that depends on your choices today, would you not want to make sure that you "know for certain" that your faith is built on a solid, sure and factual foundation? A basis where you can have 100% certainty, rather than a belief in which you have to deal with 50% doubt.

If all situations or subjects are treated as grey areas, instead of clearly defined black or white situations - where a right and a wrong can clearly be identified - they could in many cases have devastating effects and significantly impact people's lives. The fact that a person's viewpoint on a matter may move from a clearly defined true or false, to an undefined grey area of: "maybe this", or "maybe that" - depending on how he experiences life and how he feels that day - will ultimately not alter the mechanics behind the subject in view, no matter how people's viewpoints may change. The way in which a "truth" or a fallacy" will affect a person, will remain constant and is not affected by a shift in opinion. Attempting to impose a viewer's interpretation on a subject can be quite dangerous, as the impact and final affecting results remain the same, even if an altered viewpoint or "perceived truth" is held by the majority. The fact that the law of gravity exists on Earth will not be altered in any sense whatsoever by how people view the matter. Whether you believe that gravity is factual and true or not, will in no way affect how the Earth's mass will interact with your body through gravity.14

To demonstrate this a little more clearly, let us consider the following scenario as an example: A man takes a bottle of cyanide (we do not know why he has a bottle of cyanide in his house) and puts it on a shelf in his garage, next to some of the pesticides he uses in his garden. The bottle is clearly labelled on the outside, stating that the liquid contained in the bottle is cyanide, that it is lethal and should not be consumed.

If we analyse this situation we would find the following: There is the person who performed an action at a specific point in time, by putting a bottle of poison on a shelf on a specific date. This person would be intimately familiar with the reason why he did this and would not question the contents of the bottle or the reasons for his own action. He also wrote instructions on the label to prevent other people from coming to harm when faced with questions about the bottle and its substance. This could be compared to a historic situation or event where people today may have varying opinions or viewpoints, regarding the accuracy or factuality of information regarding that situation.

If a person, other than the man who placed the bottle on the shelf, now walks past this bottle on his own, he will be faced with a situation in which he will need to decide how he views the information presented to him. If he adheres to the instructions on the label and believes that the information is true, he lives; if he chooses to ignore it and applies his own interpretation, he will put his life at risk and could die.

There are also several ways in which people could then interpret and deal with the information, as their viewpoints may be influenced over time, due to different forces that are at work. This may eventually lead them to believe something other than what is written on the label. Below are some possible situations:

**A:** \-- If you see the bottle which you filled with the deadly liquid, which you labelled clearly with the original information about the poison and put the bottle on the shelf on a specific date, it seems logical that you, would pay attention to the information on the label and do as it says. You remember filling the bottle with poison, and because you do not want harm to come to yourself or others you also applied a label that clearly states the danger in black and white to those who may encounter this scenario with questions about it. Having first-hand recollection of filling the container with cyanide and those memories still fresh in your mind, you would not entertain thoughts of applying a different interpretation to what you have in front of you. If people follow these rules (or read the label correctly and do as it says) they stay safe and no harm comes to them. They have interpreted the situation correctly and have applied the correct action by doing as the label instructs.

**B:** \-- If however, the bottle and label gathered some dust over time, the person who originally filled the container with the poison has sold the house with its contents and is no longer present to provide answers to questions about the container, people reading the label may have new questions that the original owner did not even entertain. They may view the bottle with its contents and label with a slightly different perspective than the original homeowner. Thoughts entering their minds may include:

**1:** \-- Did the previous owner really put cyanide in this bottle?

**2:** \-- How long has the bottle been standing there?

**3:** \-- Is the information on the label valid?

**4:** \-- What was the cyanide used for?

**5:** \-- Is the poison still poisonous after some time has passed?

**6:** \-- Should we perhaps get the contents of the bottle tested, just to make sure?

If even more time passes and the house is sold periodically over generations, so that the label on the bottle is not only dusty, but becomes faded to such a degree that one can barely read what was written on it: Similar questions would come to mind, but in addition, people may now have insufficient information available to assist them in understanding how the subject should be treated. This could be analogous with moving viewpoints on a subject from a clearly defined black and white area, into a grey area.

Since the label no longer provides enough information regarding the contents of the bottle, people may opt to open the bottle and sniff it or taste some of the contents to determine what they are actually dealing with.

If the label was completely removed, or someone attached a new label with new information, it could have catastrophic consequences:

**1:** \-- The person dealing with the subject now has no idea about the dangers that are lurking in the bottle in front of them - the new label does not cancel the effects that the contents would have on a person.

**2:** \-- They have no idea of how the bottle came to be on the shelf, what it contains or who the person was who filled it initially. Even though they see a container with some liquid in it and a faded or altered label; they have no idea who put the bottle on the shelf or how he filled the bottle, or for that matter, the information on the original label. All they have to assist in their evaluation of the situation is the evidence currently before them.

**3:** \-- They would not know that the bottle contains a poison and while a new label provides information to the reader, it could be totally misleading, incorrect and untruthful.

**4:** \-- Swallowing some of the fluid in the bottle, unaware of the effects the contents will have, would kill someone.

What this little analogy is trying to portray, is the way in which modern day society steers the population into paradigms, where viewpoints on most subjects or situations in life are encouraged to undergo a transition from a well-defined understanding of a subject to a personal interpretation, which is moulded to suit the individual's preferences.

When viewing evidence today about historic events, for us, living centuries or millennia after these events, the information may have become faded. We interpret the information related to these events through the dust that have accumulated over the eras. Our interpretation will be different to those of people living in the time of a specific event happening and who were actually there to witness it. As time passes and the evidence fades, old viewpoints become out-dated or obsolete in the minds of the majority in society and have to be replaced by more modern views, which are considered hip or trendy and acceptable to the majority.

As an example: Specific groups of people have now cast doubts over the factuality of the Holocaust - questioning whether it ever occurred.15 The evidence for the events that transpired is overwhelming. However, as time passes and fewer survivors remain to substantiate the facts, it becomes easier to question a world-changing event, such as the Holocaust. There are certain principles that remain the same. No matter how much time passes, or how much society wants to shape people's viewpoints or thoughts on a subject, or how liberal the thinking becomes, the mechanics behind a subject in view always remain constant.

In the example above, the contents of the bottle remains poisonous, no matter how people's viewpoints or thoughts on the matter are swayed or influenced, either by their own thoughts or by external factors, like ink fading on the label, or long periods of time passing. It is important to constantly evaluate the world around you. You have to evaluate whether what the media or society (holding to a specific trendy or majority viewpoint) is portraying can be properly substantiated and if it can always be accepted as the truth. You have to always ask yourself: Is the information that is presented to me just somebody's opinion and can I perhaps evaluate it further to establish for myself if it is in fact true? It is important that you should consider the following questions on any matter where there are different viewpoints:

**A:** \-- Can I always trust my own opinion, or that of the majority, on any matter to be 100% correct, if there is insufficient scientific or other supporting evidence?

**B:** \-- Should I adopt a new viewpoint if information that supports an opposing viewpoint to mine, becomes available? (Or if my viewpoint is proven to be wrong)

**C:** \-- How can I KNOW that the belief or viewpoint that I hold, is 100% correct?

**D:** \-- When it comes to spiritual matters, does it really matter what I believe?

**E:** \-- If it does matter and I am wrong, how does that affect me and my family now, later and when I die?

A few decades ago, the distinction between right and wrong for various viewpoints was much clearer and much more obvious than today.12 In most modern societies, people who refuse to adopt the latest trends or viewpoints are often rejected by their peers or given a derogatory label by society and then left with one of two choices on the following question:

What is more important to me?

**A:** \-- My "friends", the group of people where I was previously accepted, rejecting me now,

or

**B:** \-- My viewpoints, which are now seen as socially unacceptable by my peers.

It seems as if everyone wants to feel accepted and wanted by the people around them Driven by a craving for acceptance, most people follow instructions, as long as it means that they will not be left alone or singled out as a person rejected by society.16

Media and associated technologies play key roles in influencing society by their perception of the world around them.17 To give another example: When a fashion designer exhibits his designs at a fashion show, employing models who all seem to be starving, creates in the viewer's mind an assumption that beauty can only be achieved through starvation. At the same time an opposing view is indirectly formed, where people who are not starving themselves are seen as the non-conformers and as a result, unable to be seen as fashionable, until they achieve the portrayed image.

Looking at this objectively, there is no particular reason why very lean people in designer clothes would be more fashionable than more full-bodied or even athletic people, in clothes that complement their figures. The only reason why people who seem to be starving themselves are seen as more fashionable is because this is the current image that is being portrayed as the norm by fashion designers. This is then promoted through the media who will emphasise aspects that advocates of these thoughts want their audiences to see and hear. People calmly accept and conform to this indoctrination as the norm and follow it.

According to Virginia Blum, if you were living in Los Angeles, California, for example, you would be socially more acceptable to your peers, if you underwent cosmetic surgery.18 Some of these procedures have devastating results, as can be seen in some well-known public figures where things did not go according to plan and left them looking very unnatural and even scarred for life in some cases.

Reasons for cosmetic surgery might be to boost self-confidence, dissatisfaction with their looks and often, as a result of peer pressure. People will often do whatever they have to, to preserve their standing as trendy and current, for acceptance in society, no matter the cost or consequence.

The question we have to ask ourselves is: Who decides what is acceptable? If we look at the examples above, what are the motives for projecting certain images into people's minds? Why are these projected viewpoints important and why does the media place so much emphasis on them? When you look at this objectively, you get a distinct feeling that there is more going on here, than is given credit for. You also notice a distinct deviation from what was previously considered to be an absolute, where right and wrong could clearly be distinguished, to areas which are now open to random interpretation.

In most cases, if we compared the present moral situation with that of previous centuries, we would also notice a distinct decline on moral views of right and wrong. 19 John Brueggemann found that the majority of society no longer consider the abortion of an unwanted baby as morally wrong, although it is in actual fact murder. This practice would have caused social uproar a few decades ago.

Another example would be the influence of the latest socially accepted values on the family structure. A few decades ago, we had fewer broken families, according to Gaffal.20 When people got divorced in the early 1900's and even up to the 1980's, the majority would have frowned upon a split in the family. Divorcees, generally, felt ashamed, because people viewed marriage in a very different light - marriage was sacred and once you entered into marriage, it was meant to last, come what may. This viewpoint has changed dramatically and marriage is no longer viewed as something sacred, but could be akin to a fashion statement. Once the trend is over, you move on to the latest and greatest.

Shocking statistics that can be found on the internet shows the following: Today, almost 70% of children in the USA live in homes that can be classified as non-traditional families.21 Research has shown that the majority of people from broken homes do not fare as well in life as those that come from homes with a stable family structure; yet the media promotes these changed viewpoints. Society is being so over exposed to the negative in movies, or television series, famous people's family issues, divorces, new partnerships and children born out of wedlock, that it has become perfectly acceptable and even fashionable. Ultimately, this affects the values of people living in societies where the mainstream viewpoint on matters around family has been so twisted, that a stable family is even seen as old-fashioned.

People's level of commitment, not only in their marriages, but in all walks of life, has drastically declined since the 70's.22 Today, people anticipate divorce, even before they get married. They have prenuptial and other contractual agreements on ways of dissolution of the marriage, when it occurs sometime in the future. This removes any form of trust that may have existed between the parties, even before they started their lives together and is in most cases a recipe for disaster. Couples go through different experiences and even trying times during their marriage. In any marriage there will be times of joy or times of conflict, where both parties will have to find ways around problems and move forward and in the process grow closer to each other. How can you then truly feel safe in a marriage when you constantly live under a cloud of uncertainty about the other party's commitment to the marriage? Often, at the first sign of conflict, the marriage is ended. The devastating effect of divorce on the children has been proven over and over. In today's society marriage is often labelled as a way to complicate your life. Just "living together" removes the responsibility and commitment from the relationship. It becomes the selfish pursuit of pleasure, fun and excitement, with total disregard for the feelings and needs of the other parties involved. Children don't have stability or a sense of security and even sometimes feel that they are somehow responsible for their parent's breakup. Victims of this selfish behaviour then go through life struggling, having a sound foundation removed and the children of the next generation end up even worse off, not knowing any better.

Below are some statistics from 2003, referenced from the internet:

68.7% of American Youth are living in non-traditional families:

23.3% living with biological mother (Step-family Association)

4.4% living with biological father (Step-family Association)

1% in Foster Families (U.S. Census Bureau)

3.7% living with non-relatives (U.S. Census Bureau)

6.3% living with grandparents (AARP - U.S. Census Bureau)

30% living in Step-families (Step-family Association) 23

The same trends, which these children experienced in the homes of their parents, are often carried through to their lives as adults. Research proves that a distorted viewpoint of marriage causes the majority of children coming from something other than the traditional family, to have some kind of difficulty in their lives.22

Behavioural Statistics

75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

1 out of 5 children have a learning, emotional, or behavioural problem due to the family system changing. (National Center for Health Statistics)

More than half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children. (Children's Defence Fund)

According to Casey, nine million American children face risk factors that may hinder their ability to become healthy and productive adults. One in seven children deal with at least four of the risk factors, which include growing up in a single-parent household. The survey also indicated that children, confronting several risk factors, are more likely to experience problems with concentration, communication and health. (Kids Count Survey - Annie E. Casey Foundation. 1999)

Statistics on Suicide

Every 78 seconds a teen attempts suicide - every 90 seconds they succeed. (National Center for Health Statistics)

63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)

"Separation, divorce and unmarried parenthood seemed to be a high risk for children/adolescents in these families for the development of suicidal behaviour." 24

Teen Pregnancy Statistics

75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes (Children in need: Investment Strategies. Committee for Economic Development)

Approximately 13% of all babies born in the U.S. are born to adolescent mothers, with one million teens becoming pregnant each year. Explanations for teen pregnancy include the break-up of the American home and parental loss. (University of Kentucky, Departments of Psychiatry, Ob/Gyn and Psychology)

To get a society to adopt a new viewpoint, a strategy is employed to gradually introduce the transition from one viewpoint to another. If a new viewpoint is forced onto people too rapidly, without allowing them to get used to it first, they will be more likely to resist it and it will not catch on. If, however, changes are introduced over a number of years and people are gradually introduced and allowed to familiarise themselves with the viewpoint – more and more people will be drawn into accepting it as socially acceptable.

This concept is clearly illustrated in the way that films degraded from something that could be enjoyed by the entire family, to necessitating the current rating system, where age restrictions are in place for most films, due to foul language, violence, murder, sexually explicit scenes or nudity. Have you ever stopped to think about this? Why would something that is deemed bad for a minor to watch, not be just as bad for an adult? Based on what moral grounds and criteria have age limits been assigned? What determines that a film would be suitable for viewing by people above a certain age, but not by others below that age? The rating system was introduced, over an extended period of decades. The majority of society initially resisted the idea of immoral displays of human behaviour through the medium of feature films.

I can still remember the days in which the censor board in South Africa would keep a hawk's eye on the material that entered the country. We would even have reports on the news about certain films from abroad being banned from showing in our theatres. In this argument, I am not saying that I am in any way against the freedom of speech or expression. Is what we allow into our homes and what we allow our children to be exposed to, conducive to seeding good morals and principles to live by?

There used to be very few films carrying a 21-age restriction shown in the theatres or on television, but as people became comfortable with the idea that the rating system was there to provide protection, they lowered their guard. As time passed, more and more of these films were screened. In today's world very little is done to shield people from what would have been considered harmful or morally degrading just a few years ago - all under the banner of free speech or freedom of information.

South Africa no longer employs people who serve on a censor board. All kinds of material are allowed into the country and people are expected to use their own discretion when viewing anything. In my opinion the age rating system for media entertainment is in fact a Trojan horse, which was introduced into society, to keep up a facade of "we are providing protection through the rating system" and "we are not withholding any information from you that you may need." It is actually prompting society into a state of numbness, where morality is continuously degraded through actions that are repeatedly portrayed as acceptable, through the immoral and unlawful behaviour portrayed in television series and films. At the same time many children, who are told that they are not allowed to watch programs carrying an age restriction, can't wait for the birthday when they would be allowed to watch programs that are now being withheld from them. These children are actually worse off than those who never had a television set, since they would now have a hunger for something which was introduced as part of the rating system.25

I am predicting that sooner or later age restrictions will no longer be required; people will feel that they are actually infringing on the rights of their children to choose what they want to view - of course, all of this will be done very gradually, albeit noticeably. The enforcement of the rating systems is not controlled. It does not provide protection, but actually opens up a Pandora's Box for both minors and adults to introduce them to unsuitable or morally degrading material. It is merely a way of getting us to relax our guard while everyone is in effect influenced. It soothes our conscience while the media is infiltrating our society with images, acts and doctrines that are more harmful than informative. The media can now wash their hands of any accountability and fool unsuspecting viewers into watching whatever they would want them to see.

According to Mackay, the media is also said to be promoting free speech in most countries, but if studied carefully, it is evident that this is really just a façade and that the media is a mouthpiece to promote viewpoints and information, which is controlled and extremely biased.26 Certain viewpoints will not enjoy any exposure through the media - even though free speech is said to be welcomed. Certain unpopular, but more accurate and factual viewpoints, are even blocked.

When it comes to religion, some of the major religions in the world today have totally contradictory viewpoints, yet they draw in scores of followers, who seem to be convinced that what they believe is true. The options are plentiful. You could for instance be:

An Atheist who believes that there is no god, that life on Earth happened by accident and evolved over billions of years into what we have today and that there is no life after death,

or

A Hindu, who believes that there are some 330 million gods and when you die, your spirit returns to a new physical body and gains new experiences; that your new existence is based on the principle of Karma and your main goal is to exit this cycle of re-birth and death,

or

A Muslim, serving a god, that requires strict obedience to laws and which provides you with no guarantee that you will enter heaven and where your good works on Earth will hopefully earn you an enjoyable afterlife where you will receive 72 virgins to fulfil your heart's desires,

or

A Christian who believes that God created the Heaven and the Earth and became man - providing salvation from sin as a loving gift to those who would accept it through his death on the cross and resurrection thereafter. A God who wants to be in a personal relationship with you.

These viewpoints greatly differ from each other and are but a few of the thousands of viewpoints out there. Although they are examples of mainstream beliefs, they pose some serious questions as to why people have such incompatible views, when it comes to spiritual matters.

Have you ever stopped to give this some serious thought? Ask yourself the following questions and please note the feelings that you experience when answering them. Also, if you need to think about these for a while, do so. It is important that you properly evaluate your thoughts and position yourself before moving on:

**Question 1: When it comes to religion and Spirituality: What do I Believe?** – Can I clearly define my viewpoint on religion? Do I know exactly what it is that I believe?

**Question 2: What is the Basis for my Belief? -- Why do I believe what I believe?** What made me decide to adopt this viewpoint and why do I see my viewpoint on religion as the most correct when compared to all the others that are out there?

**Question 3: Am I 100% convinced that my viewpoint is absolutely correct and that I have no doubt about it whatsoever?** \-- What convinces me, that what I believe is absolutely true? Have I adopted an idea of a historic figure? How do I know that this person was 100% sure about his own viewpoint and even if he was sure - was it 100% correct? What happened to his predecessors, who were unaware of the belief system that was later founded by him? If I am not 100% sure of my viewpoint; is it possible that some other belief may hold the truth? Am I prepared to consider other options and would factual evidence be something that would remove the doubts in my mind?

**Question 4: Do I believe in something of my own free will or because I am following someone else blindly?** \-- Why would I believe something just because others believe it? If I cannot know whether a belief is true or not, is it really worth holding on to? Am I wasting my efforts on something that could finally emerge as being false and cause a really disastrous disappointment?

**Question 5: Can I offer reliable proof to substantiate my belief?** \-- Am I confident and in a position to offer anyone who enquires about my viewpoint, tangible evidence for what I hold as true? Am I able to prove to them that I have a solid foundation - more than just my personal feelings about the matter - on which I build my faith?

As you read through these questions, did you at any time experience some form of doubt entering your mind? Maybe you were asking: "Can one really be 100% sure about a topic of this nature?" or maybe thought: "On spiritual matters one can never be absolutely sure...?" Maybe you feel confident about your beliefs, but there is that part of you that is thinking, "What if I am wrong...?" There is a vast difference between having a feeling of "hope", of convincing yourself that you must be right and of "knowing" with certainty, that what you have in front of you is the truth.

Many philosophical arguments have been raised on this topic. People have debated the subject of the afterlife for years and years, often not offering qualifying proof for their point of view. They use their ability to cleverly convey their ideas and to outsmart their opponents through their elegantly devised verbal arguments which are difficult to prove either true or false. In the end the audience leaves with more questions than when they arrived, or they ask new questions, which previously did not feature in their thoughts.

When fresh perceptions are formed, in a quest to find answers to these questions, new religions and beliefs are created and draw in new followers. Many people base their beliefs on nothing more than arguments put forward by someone else and their own feelings that they rely on as evidence for their belief. In the end it still does not answer the question: How does one identify the one viewpoint/opinion on the spiritual aspect of life that is really true? This is a very important question, because, if there is an afterlife, which may come with clearly defined rules and/or requirements; where you spend your afterlife and eternity, will depend on whether you are preparing correctly in this present life.

From my own experiences and discussions with scores of people, I realised that many people hold beliefs that are not only different to my own, but for which, in most cases, they had no valid justification or proof. Some told me that they believe in a cosmic sperm machine that spat them out into this world and now that they are here, they might as well enjoy life and do what pleases them to get the most out of life, before they die and disappear into nothingness.

Others discussed their Roman Catholic background telling me that they did not understand why they had to go and confess their sins to a priest, a mere sinful man, especially when he seemed to be enjoying listening to them while fishing for more details on their shameful behaviour. They were also angry with God and asked the question that if God were good, why would he allow bad things to happen to good people and their pets? They were at a point where they did not want to associate with their church anymore, but did not know what the alternative was.

Others again, believed that you are god yourself and that you do not have to answer to anyone for your actions. You just have to accept the fact that you are god. Once you do this, you will at some stage reach a point where you will ascend to a higher level of existence - all questions will be answered and life as we know it, will become meaningless.

When discussing the meaning of prayer with another, he told me that it was just something you do when you are down – just giving yourself a good pep-talk, nothing more than that. When I asked some of my friends and colleagues how they knew that what they believed was true, they could not give me any substantiating or believable explanation, they were also unable to convince anybody else that they had captured the truth.

It was only after hearing various differing views on the matter and after evaluating my own viewpoint on this, that I was led to ask the question: How can I know that what I believe is the truth? I have therefore set out to get to the bottom of the matter, so that when people ask me for proof of why I believe my viewpoint on matters of a spiritual nature is the truth, I will be able to provide them with tangible proof, which they can verify for themselves.

# Chapter 2: A Little Background

As an engineer I enjoy working environments in which I am allowed to solve problems, so I really looked forward to the challenge of proving my point. I enjoy science and have always been intrigued by our Universe and the complexity and diversity of life on Earth.

As I gathered more and more information in my research over the years, I found it so amazing, that this process has cleared my perspective on various issues. It has also strengthened my resolve in matters where I did not really hold a definite or solid opinion before. Where previously I had doubts, there was now a bold assured confidence, based on tangible facts. I no longer rely on hearsay or personal feelings or unsubstantiated viewpoints.

I will attempt to take you on this journey with me to arrive at a place where you can decide for yourself - where you can, with absolute certainty, say that you know that what you believe is true, based on verifiable facts. I hope this will help you too!

According to Menton, there are two general worldviews that one could hold on the origin of life today.1 A popular view, also considered acceptable science in most scientific circles today, holds the view that life originated by chance on Earth. This is said to have happened more than 4 billion years ago and that the diversity of creations and life forms that we now see around us on Earth, were produced through the process of evolution. This process did not require the involvement of a designer or a creator, it occurred spontaneously, by chance, billions of years ago.

The other viewpoint, previously held by scientists, but now being pushed aside by mainstream thinking, says that the Creator God designed and created everything and that the Universe may not be as old as scientists calculate it to be. Both these views are seemingly difficult to prove unequivocally and both can be labelled as belief systems, but how does one prove which is true and which is false? Can both be true at the same time? Surely not, the two systems are vastly different and have distinctly different mechanisms at work. Your worldview will affect who you are as a person and how you fit into society. Have you ever considered these two possibilities in detail? Do you know with certainty, which option you would side with and have good reasons for doing so?

In the next chapters we will explore these views in a little more detail. I will attempt to provide more information and clarity on matters, which are often stated as facts, but for which no evidence exists, or even where evidence to the contrary exists. The information, as it is presented is in no way exhaustive, but serves as an introduction into the subject of faith founded and based upon provable facts and where you, as the reader, can further explore the topics which will be addressed.

I was born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1973 and raised as a Christian, by Christian parents. My parents belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church and taught my three sisters and me to the best of their ability, with their knowledge and experience, according to Christian principles. It involved a personal relationship with our Creator, to whom you could go at any time with anything you had on your heart - be this in the form of a request, a discussion or giving thanks. It also included activities such as going to church on Sundays, and being in fellowship with like-minded people - living according to what the Bible prescribes. Studying the Bible increased our knowledge of our Creator and the way in which he relates to us and the way in which we should relate to him.

The church that we attended did not put so much emphasis on a personal relationship with God. It focused more on the traditions that were carried over from previous generations. The Dutch Reformed Church has had a very traditional past to which the more conventional members of the congregation would cling, as if for dear life. I clearly remember church services on Sundays during the 70's and 80's. All the women would be wearing hats, men would be dressed in suits and ties and when the preacher prayed, men would have to stand up, while women would remain seated. Each Sunday the congregation would, on cue, recite the creed, used in the Dutch Reformed Church. The entire service would have a predictable sequence and although the preacher's message changed from Sunday to Sunday, the routine of the service became very evident, even monotonous.

The Dutch Reformed Church did not emphasise spirituality or the supernatural during the 70's and 80's or even the 90's. Come to think of it, even today, they are still lacking the emphasis on the spiritual aspects of life. I remember walking out of church one day when one lady said to another: "Now we have done our duty for the week". This opened my eyes to the fact that some people were not there because they wanted to be there. They were there, because they believed that if they were not there, they might have lost some points on their journey through life. Changing any aspect of the way in which things were done in the Dutch Reformed Church, would normally lead to some of the church members leaving that specific congregation or denomination and moving to another. They would then find one, which still held to the traditions that they were familiar with, until there too signs of change started to appear and the pattern would be repeated. Most of the inspirational information that we had on issues of a spiritual nature came from other sources outside our church at that stage.

I could never understand why people would choose to leave a church or be upset about small changes to the way in which things were done during the church service - I saw it as very self-centred and thought that these people were there for the wrong reasons anyway. Surely, no church tradition could ever have an influence on where and how you would spend your afterlife - to me it just did not make any sense. Why would people prefer to abandon their church and even some of their friends, because of a small change in routine or tradition, or the introduction of a new musical instrument, just to find another church? This in my mind had nothing to do with the reason we were members of the church in the first place.

My knowledge of the Bible started at a very young age and I can still vividly remember days when I was only about three years old, sitting on my parents bed, while they read to me from the Bible. I can still see in my mind's eye, pictures of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or Daniel in the lion's den drawn in a Renaissance styled drawing. I grew up accumulating a lot of knowledge about the Bible and doctrines held by different denominations of Christianity, but that was all it was: knowledge. I never had to question my beliefs.

As I matured and interacted with friends at university and later with my colleagues, who came from different backgrounds, different walks of life and even different countries, I realised that some of their views were totally different from mine. This stirred questions in me around my belief system. When I enquired from them the reason for their view and how they substantiated their views, none of them could give me any concise or convincing answer. They would say something like: "That is just the way in which I see things", "my parents were Catholic and so am I" or "I don't know, but it's the option that makes the most sense to me." I could tell that none of them had any defined conviction about their beliefs and I realised then, how important it is to know why I believed in something, especially if it had to do with where I will spend eternity.

At this point it dawned on me that there may be a lot of people out there with the same questions or uncertainties about their beliefs. This observation created in me a need to seek the truth, so that when someone should ask me, I could provide solid and supporting evidence for my viewpoints. The reason for writing this book is to convey the information that I found very valuable as I journeyed through life and discovered the truth.

# Chapter 3: How Does One Prove Something to be True and Factual?

The first aspect one needs to consider when researching the truthfulness or factual status of any subject would be to have a good understanding of how truth can be verified. When someone, with some credentials behind his name, makes a statement, many people would accept it as true. Just because he has studied a specific field or discipline, it does not necessarily mean that he would understand every aspect of that discipline. Unfortunately credentials alone do not provide a trustworthy basis for proving any statement factual and true. Neither do they provide added legitimacy to any findings. Regrettably our society today has become accustomed to accepting any information, divulged by "experts" in specific fields of study, as the absolute truth. This tendency is not new and has happened throughout history.

In the recent past, with the introduction of relativism, the need for people to question and discover for themselves has been attacked and muted.1 Since "truth" is no longer deemed an absolute, it removes the need for questioning statements. It allows situations in which any information is delivered in a way that would assume acceptance by the receiver, without question. Should you question the information, based on evident facts that do not match the information, you would be singled out as a bigot or termed old-fashioned. The fear of voicing your own opinion places you in a dangerous position, since it has a numbing effect on your mind and forces you to accept information without questioning it. Determining whether the information is actually true or false, is no longer that important.

People today have much less trouble automatically accepting information, provided by the media and "expert channels" like National Geographic, as true. People assume that the information has been screened and filtered by an expert on the subject matter. It can therefore be trusted and all the information would be considered as properly researched, accurate and truthful. Let us go back a few centuries and look at how "truth" was established in the past – how some of the difficulties people encountered then, are still present in our process of understanding today.

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that the Earth was flat.2 Technology, a few centuries ago, was limited and scientists were restricted in their ability to conduct experiments. This limitation affected the way in which their understanding of a specific subject was developed. Their view of the Earth was limited to what they observed around them at that time. The technology to send objects into orbit or even to get a good view of the Earth from a distance did not exist. With their limited perspective, it would appear to people living in the distant past that the Earth was indeed flat. There are still some individuals, i.e. members of the Flat Earth Society, who today hold this out-dated view, in spite of the fact that new evidence has been collected that provide tangible scientific proof against the flat Earth viewpoint.3

Today there are numerous methods in which one can prove, without any doubt, that the Earth is in fact spherical and not flat. During the past century, scientists came up with brilliant solutions to problems and technology increased at a rate that far exceeds technological improvements of previous centuries or millennia. Today, we have high precision GPS systems that can pinpoint your position on the surface of the Earth very accurately. This is done through exact triangulation between geostationary satellites that are placed around the globe and a calculation that measures the angles and distances from your GPS device to the GPS satellites, which then provides you with an accurate location.4 This feat of technology would have been unimaginable in the early 1,800's. At that point, flight was still something that eluded humans and comparing the situation then to what we have today, it is really astonishing to realise how much the human race has achieved in a period of just more than a century. Compared to the past four to five millennia for which we have historic records, knowledge and technology has never increased as rapidly as during the past two centuries.

A few hundred years ago, people believed that larger objects fall to the Earth faster than smaller objects, or that the effect of gravity differs for objects with different masses.5 As science progressed and technology improved, this assumption has been proven incorrect. When scientists identified external influences, through improved apparatus with which they could perform additional tests, they quickly realised that there were other factors that significantly affected objects as they fall through air. The advances in technology allowed them to test the same hypothesis under conditions that were specifically altered, to ensure that all external influences could be isolated. This ultimately led to the disproval of the original theory and provided additional insight. The reason why people believed the theory to be true was because they were only able to see half of the picture and did not know about the other half that was still missing and hidden from sight. Taking a closer look at this example, we will quickly demonstrate how their thoughts progressed from forming a hypothesis, to finally proving that their initial hypothesis was incorrect.

It is also important to remember that scientists today (although they possess vast amounts of knowledge, far exceeding those of previous centuries and having high precision technologically, advanced instrumentation and measuring techniques for assessing situations under scientific scrutiny) still often have to deal with situations, where there are many unknowns present. Even in our advanced technological state, we still lack efficient means of experimentation in many fields. Scientists often admit that they are aware of these limitations in their research and will admit that their theory, although accepted by the majority as true, cannot be proven as true.6

The problem remains; no matter where we find ourselves in history and technological advancement, we are limited by our dimensionality - time and locality. We will never, from this limited position, know with 100% certainty what percentage of the full picture is in view before us. For any subject that we would like to investigate, we are only able to test and observe from within our limited position and no matter how hard we try, there are certain aspects that will always remain elusive.

To give a little better understanding of the processes normally followed during a scientific analysis, we will look at how scientists of past centuries considered how different objects behaved when dropped and fell through air under the influence of gravity. They observed specific qualities and the behaviour of the object, as it was falling. They would then interpret and draw some conclusions from their observations, based on their understanding of the processes involved. Although they may not have understood all of the factors at that time, their observations gave them enough confidence to formulate a hypothesis, explaining why the objects were behaving in a certain way as they were falling through air.

To demonstrate: A scientist, centuries ago, could take a rock and a feather and drop them at the same time from the balcony of his house and observe the results as both fell to the ground. In this case, it would not matter how many times the scientist repeated this test - the rock would always reach the ground first, since the resistance for the rock, falling through air, is much less than that of the feather.

After repeating the test and obtaining several sets of data that point to the rock, which is heavier, falling to the Earth faster than the feather, the scientist may feel confident from his interpretation of the behaviour of the objects, that his repeated results had proven his assumption as true. He would feel that his analysis of the behaviour of objects in relationship to the gravity of Earth, where "the Earth's gravity has a greater attraction to heavier objects than it has to lighter objects," had been proven to be true and that lighter objects are indeed attracted to the Earth with less force than is the case for heavier objects.

Although the results may be conclusive to the scientist at the time, he has not fully understood all the factors that were influencing his observations when he was conducting his tests. His conclusions will therefore be erroneous even though he feels that he is absolutely certain of his facts.

A few centuries ago no counter-arguments or methods existed to disprove this theory, and lacking the means to prove otherwise, this is what the majority of people accepted as true. This theory was incorrect, because important facts had not been considered in the formulation of the theory, due to limitations in the capability to eliminate external influences, like:

**A:** \-- The medium (air), in which the objects were being tested, is a gas and has specific properties like density, viscosity and compressibility. It produces a counteracting force that is a function of the shape of the object, in relation to its mass. What this means, is that when the scientist first came up with the idea that there were different gravitational forces affecting objects with different masses, he left out the counteracting effects that air would have on objects as they travelled through it.

**B:** \-- The shape of an object and the way in which this relates to its mass, will have a significant impact on how it will behave when falling through air. This phenomenon can also be referred to as the resistance that the object will have when travelling through air or as it is more commonly known – the object's "drag".7 Today in engineering it is easy to calculate the drag coefficient of any object and it is especially important when aerodynamic designs are considered. When the effects of drag are not excluded from an experiment to determine what effect gravity has on it, the interpretation of the results will be erroneous.

In the past, when the scientist made his observations, although the results may appear correct, he would actually be wrong, due to a lack of understanding and having erroneous preconceptions about the object that is being observed in the first place. The scientist would also have been limited in his ability to create the right conditions for carrying out a test that would prove otherwise.

Only once more sophisticated methodologies and equipment were invented as technology improved, did it become possible to gain a more complete understanding of the forces at work and properly test all factors relating to this theory.

When scientists want to publish their findings in scientific papers, they would follow the following process: After a scientist has initially published his original observations and conclusions, other scientists may review those findings, conduct further tests and they may come to conclusions confirming or refuting it. They may also point out aspects which were ignored or overlooked in the initial experiment. This process is known as applying the scientific method and is seen as good science in practice.8

Before publishing a paper, a scientist will have to double-check his findings and ensure that he has done everything possible to eliminate any factors which may distort the results he obtained from his experiment. If the scientist had a good understanding of all the forces in play when dropping an object through air, he would have known that it would be necessary to eliminate the effect of air on the object, since the presence of air, as the medium in which his test was conducted, may have influenced or distorted the results that he obtained. The feather was not falling straight down, but floated through the air - moving through air as a function of its shape, its mass and air passing over it.

If however, the scientist performed the same experiment in an environment where no air was present (like in a vacuum), the two objects would be observed as falling to the Earth at the same speed and would reach the ground at exactly the same time, even when the test is repeated more than once.

In these two examples an assumption or hypothesis, that was incorrect, was initially accepted as true, due to the incapability to test all the influencing factors at that time. This is very important to remember, since the same problems that scientists from earlier centuries faced, are also faced by scientists today. There are often unknown factors in play when it comes to collecting data from experimentation. What is most concerning is that, as a result of relativism being introduced into society, it has become normal to accept as true those things, which can even be proven false. This results in people no longer needing to question or to think critically about a subject. What is the point? In the end, if one does not agree with what the majority sees as true and trendy, it may negatively affect your social status, or even limit your career options and who wants that?

Today, according to D'Onofrio and Burigana, cosmology is an area of research in which unknowns are often encountered in almost every experiment that is carried out.9 A true and factual conclusion will always be impossible when a scientist fails to identify all aspects influencing a subject under review, or even if he is able to identify these aspects, but unable to test them, due to limitations in dimensionality. These unknowns eventually lead to assumptions, which become theories, which cannot be proved, but are accepted by the science community as true over time.

As with the falling objects experiment, if a scientist does not have a complete understanding of the subject initially and is unable to identify all the factors, that influence certain aspects of his experiment, a wrong deduction and subsequent conclusion will be reached. From these examples one can see how easy it is for people, who usually accept the findings of scientists or experts as true, to accept an incorrect viewpoint as the truth.

Just because some tests have been performed and/or facts proving a hypothesis as true does not mean that it is actually true. It is very important to note that one or two scientific experiments that are carried out, although proven as repeatable and the results verifiable, may provide misleading information if any facts or influences, internal or external, are not fully understood, or if they are misinterpreted or are omitted from a test during the collecting of data through experimentation.

Scientists can often reach incorrect conclusions after conducting preliminary experimentation that supports, or is biased towards, proving their own hypotheses. Although their results are seemingly proven as correct for the tests that were performed, additional tests can often be performed that would reveal the flaws in the scientists' reasoning.

In many cases today, even though technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, the same flaws and limitations can be identified in scientific experiments or observations, as in the past. Many theories and hypotheses exist around various subjects for which some experiments were conducted, but for which specific facts have emerged, proving that the original assumption or hypothesis was actually incorrect.

Very often, it is extremely difficult to fully understand a subject or even to perform an experiment to prove a hypothesis, since it is physically impossible to carry out experimentation that would confirm the theory. In all experiments that are conducted by human beings, our 4-dimentional space-time environment limits us. We do not have the ability as yet, to move around in time or to travel the astronomical distances required, in order to verify certain assumptions or hypotheses regarding the Universe. Until we are able to overcome these barriers, we are in the same position as the people who initially thought that gravity had varying effects on objects of different masses.

Any concepts, conclusions or theories, relating to events of the distant past, or that have occurred somewhere out in the Universe, that we calculate, based on our perceived qualities of light, are purely conjecture, since it is not something we are able to test conclusively.

Stephen Hawking, considered one of the most renowned scientific thinkers of our time, postulated in his book, "The Grand Design" that alternate Universes, outside of our own Universe, possibly exist. The problem with these postulations is that it is completely impossible to prove them either right or wrong, since we do not have any method to test or verify them. The only possible result from this, as is the case with many other theories in today's science, is that they will remain imaginary only.

" _One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on, but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the Universe, based on any assumptions that they fancy. These models are probably all wrong. It is usually assumed that the laws of nature have always been the same as they are now. There is no justification for this. The laws may be changing, and in particular quantities which are considered to be constants of nature may be varying with cosmological time. Such variations would completely upset the model makers."_ Dirac, Paul. On methods in theoretical physics. (Trieste. June 1968.) 10

A good example of this would be conducting experimentation to prove that the Big Bang Theory is actually true. We are not able to travel back in time to perform experiments at different points in time, which are required to get a better understanding of the mechanics at work behind the Universe. We can only observe what we see today and draw conclusions from observations that we can make from within our dimensionality now and from those made by scientists of the past.

According to John Hartnett, we also know that the mathematics behind the Big Bang suggests that there are at least 10 dimensions involved.11 We only have the ability to analyse phenomena from our limited position within our space-time locality. We have no way of proving any aspects around those, which are being postulated, to exist outside of ours and how to predict their behaviour.

Considering our limitations, our understanding of the Universe, given the astronomical distances and times involved, would be the same as asking someone to describe an event of which a black and white photo was taken at a specific point in time. If this photo depicted a scene at a carnival, it would portray only the activities at the time the photo was taken, which would no longer be self-evident, when observing the photo. This could not portray the movements of people and the speed at which they were walking; the direction of movement on the Ferris wheel and the speed at which it may have been rotating, if it was moving at all. Since we only have a black and white picture; how can we tell the colours of people's clothes or that of the carnival equipment? How can we tell with 100% accuracy from the picture what people were doing and what those that seem to be talking to each other, were discussing?

Our understanding of the Universe could be compared to this situation. There are certain aspects that may seem to be accurate. We may even feel that we have done enough experimentation in the field to convince us of the factuality of those results - but what portion of the information are we still missing? Are our assumptions even correct in any respect? If you were to look only at the black and white photo of the carnival scene and put together from your observations a detailed account of everything that was happening at that moment; how accurate do you think you could expect it to be? Could you include details like colours, the speed at which people and carnival rides were moving, even what people were talking about?

What if you were asked to describe, with accuracy, what happened at the carnival five minutes before the picture was taken? It would really be guesswork and could be compared to a shot in the dark. We have a similar situation with our understanding of the Universe around us and its beginning. We have only just developed the ability to take a snapshot of the Universe around us. We are not able to travel back in time to see what the earth looked like millions of years ago, or at any other point in time, but the present. We are not able to travel the distances required to measure our Universe physically and even our interpretations of what we do measure and observe, is moulded by our philosophies about the Universe.

The initial observations of our Universe were performed with inferior instrumentation and documented according to the understanding of the scientists at that time. Some of these findings and documents are still available to us today. The Big Bang Theory is the current prevailing cosmological theory of how the early development of the Universe, which is said to have originated around 13.7 billion years ago, occurred.12

Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the Universe was originally extremely hot and dense at a finite time in the past and after exploding and expanding, it cooled by expanding to its present state. The science community in general accepts the notion that the Universe continues to expand, as true. This theory is said to be supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.

Can scientists, even with the best technology and equipment available today, perform experimentation on aspects of the Universe (which would require measurements at different points in time or in other dimensions) to rule out or verify certain aspects, which may lead to incorrect conclusions? Can scientists take measurements at various locations in the Universe to confirm or disprove assumptions about issues which would require these measurements? Can scientists perform experimentation in dimensions beyond our space-time continuum? Can we accept that matter, which only exists as part of an equation, which has never been observed, actually exists?

The answer is no.

Is the Big Bang Theory the only possible explanation for what we observe around us in the Universe today? According to Wayt Gibbs:

_"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical Universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations...You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."_ 13

The Big Bang Theory was initially developed from observations of the structure of the Universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured what he observed as the first Doppler shift of a spiral galaxy and hypothesised that all such galaxies were receding from Earth, because of the Doppler Effect, that was evident in the light being observed.14

This phenomenon also gave rise to the current model of cosmic inflation, which is viewed as most probable by most cosmologists today. The Doppler Effect describes the change in observed frequency of a light- or sound-wave that is moving relative to an observer.

A good example of this would be the sound of a car, moving at a high velocity when it passes a pedestrian, standing at a fixed point. The pedestrian will hear the sound as being higher pitched while the car is approaching and then switching to a lower pitch when the car passes and drives away.

Based on the observations that Slipher made, it appeared that almost all galaxies were moving away from Earth. The problem with this theory is that it is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant and has always been constant over millennia or billions of years. A number of scientists, including Jean-Pierre Petit, John Moffat and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo have since (in 1988) proposed the possibility that the speed of light may not have had a constant velocity as was thought.15

Why would a variation in the speed of light be a problem? Modern physics and the Theory of Special Relativity are both built on the assumption that the speed of light has maintained a constant velocity. It is also this premise on which the age of the Universe has been calculated to be 13.7 billion years old.12 This is based on apparent distances of celestial objects and the apparent expansion of the Universe observed by astronomers and cosmologists, assuming that the speed of light has a constant property. If the speed of light were to be proven to be variable, it would upset modern physics as we know it. Our understanding of Special Relativity would no longer be valid and would require physicists to go back to the drawing board and start over.

Since Einstein formulated his Theory of Relativity and the mass-energy equivalence formula _E=mc_ 2 in which _c_ is assumed to be always constant, much has changed in our understanding of the Universe. Most recently, scientists discovered that the speed of light is not the ultimate speed that can be obtained and that there are particles that can move at speeds exceeding that of the speed of light.16

Numerous observations of the Universe have been made in so much detail that scientists feel that there is now enough observational and theoretical proof to make cosmology a proper science. Scientists have made accurate observations and measurements of cosmic background radiation, which proves that the Universe had a beginning and that it is still cooling down. They have observed and measured red-shifts that are visible and concluded from these results that the Universe is expanding. But as Dirac mentioned, we are still dealing here with a variety of possible models that are based on people's philosophies and assumptions that have no factual basis. There are no techniques or technologies currently available to scientists for probing the murky past of our Universe to understand how conditions may have changed over time, especially if billions of years are involved. Try as we may, there exists an impenetrable veil of limitation in the form of time, locality and dimensionality.

This prevents us from performing any experimentation to probe into the past, without which we cannot be sure that we fully understand the subject at hand, nor the properties of the aspects, which may have influenced it over time. Our observations lead to conclusions that are moulded around the philosophies of scientists when approaching questions concerning the cosmos. These then over time become "pseudo-facts" which the majority of the science community and the population in general accept as facts, due to the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is equally impossible to provide evidence refuting many of these theories for the same reasons.

Observations in the past have allowed scientists to entertain the idea that particular constants in physics may not in fact be constant. After the emergence of the String Theory, varying values for these well-known "constants" such as _G_ – the Gravity constant and e – the electron charge constant, became acceptable. If the same flexibility towards _c_ – the speed of light, were entertained it would cause chaos for scientists, since the foundation of most of what we think we know about science is built on the basis that the speed of light is constant.15

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system, which is not in equilibrium, will tend to increase over time.17 This means that natural decay will take place and that anything we view, will move from an ordered state to something less ordered or more chaotic over time. Some examples of this law can be found around us in everyday life: If a garden is left unattended for a month or two and is compared to one that is tended daily or weekly, it is easy to see how order can change into chaos. If you take something out of the fridge and leave it out of the fridge - the temperature of the object will move into equilibrium with the temperature of the area in which it is placed.

If this law is observed all around us and in the Universe, the law can also be considered to apply to the speed of light, although it is just as difficult to prove this theory, as it would be to prove that light's speed has always been constant. We cannot prove this through experimentation, since we would need to be able to travel through time to collect the information that would prove or disprove either viewpoint.

The possibility therefore exists, that the speed of light may well have decayed over millennia and that it may still be decreasing today. There are three factors that hinder a concise conclusion being reached.

Firstly, the substantial amount of time required between measurements to confirm this theory.

Secondly, measurements that were taken in the past were performed with apparatus or equipment that did not have the accuracy that is needed today to confirm their results.

Lastly, if the speed of light is decaying, we will struggle to define the properties of decay and whether it happens linearly, exponentially or has any other mathematical shape to it.

Before the 1600's the science community believed that the speed of light was infinite. It was only after Danish astronomer, Olaf Roemer, observed anomalies in the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io. He saw these incongruities as he compared the way in which Earth was approaching Jupiter to when Earth was receding from Jupiter. From his observations, it became apparent that light should have a finite speed. For 53 years Roemer was a scientist, whose views were disregarded by his peers, who maintained the view that the speed of light was infinite. Only in 1729 did James Bradley confirm Roemer's work and ended this division.18

Looking at how the speed of light was measured over the past 300 centuries, interesting facts emerged that point to the fact that the speed at which light travels, may be slowing down. The speed has been measured more than 160 times, using 16 different methods. In a study that Australian physicist, Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman performed, they suggested that it appeared that light may be slowing down.19 Their results have been supported by a computer analysis performed by Alan Montgomery, a Canadian mathematician. Although these observations have been strongly criticised by conservative scientists, many are now investigating the possibility that _c_ may indeed have changed over time. If this is true, what implications would it have?

Information, that we obtain through red-shifts in galaxies and by making use of the properties of light to determine the distance between Earth and other objects in the Universe, will have to be revised; based on a value for c that will no longer be constant. The concepts we have regarding the size and age of the Universe will be affected. The Universe may be smaller than we were led to believe and may not be expanding, as was previously thought. The Big Bang Theory, with all the work that scientists have put into it, may need to be discarded completely.

Many theories and models regarding the Universe's origin have emerged over the years and have already been rejected, based on subsequent evidence. As we have demonstrated, astronomers and astrophysicists can only theorise as to what they think may have happened in the past. This is purely based on current observations and provide very little in the form of valid experimental evidence to prove their hypotheses.

The best that scientists, astronomers and astrophysicists can do is to philosophise over what they observe and then construct theories around their thoughts. To prove any of the theories relating to the origin of the Universe, will remain outside our grasp for as long as humans are limited to the 4-dimensional space-time environment and the locality of our planet in the vastness of the cosmos.

It is even more difficult to experiment or provide evidence for hypotheses, which relate to topics of a non-physical or spiritual nature or those, which require additional dimensions to come into play. How would one go about verifying issues of this nature and providing evidence as proof for a viewpoint regarding these matters? In almost all cases, it is very difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is belief or "hope" only. I would like you to consider the following statement: In some cases all we have is our belief, because science cannot be used to prove a matter of spiritual nature . . . Or can it?

The Scientific Method

When scientists are referred to, it is often done in such a way, that most people would think that scientists are really clever people, knowing absolutely everything about their discipline, and that what they are saying, should never be questioned. In actual fact, scientists are just normal people who have devoted their time, effort and in some cases, their lives to understanding various subjects, in order to gain more knowledge. Dedicated scientists will make use of scientific methods for evaluation and then draw conclusions from the results obtained.8 This is done through planned and formulated experimentation carried out to collect data. From the collected data, the scientist will then draw logical conclusions and obtain more insight and understanding of the subject. As I have explained, throughout history scientists have often been found to be wrong about their conclusions and this is still the case today.

Often, additional information obtained by further studies, more advanced testing techniques and scientific peer reviews, prove that scientific conclusions are not always correct the first time or even in subsequent instances. Most recently the Israeli chemist, Daniel Schectman, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery of quasi-crystals in 1982. He had to live under the ridicule of the scientific community for almost 30 years, because his discovery seemed absurd. Only in 2011 did science adopt his discovery.20 When we consider what science is and how the scientific method is employed to move from a hypothesis, to a sound scientific fact, the following steps are normally followed:

**1: --** Define the question

**2: --** Gather information and resources (observe)

**3: --** Form hypothesis

**4: --** Perform experiments and collect data

**5: --** Analyse data

**6: --** Interpret data and draw conclusions that will serve as a starting point for a new hypothesis

**7: --** Publish results

**8: --** Retest (frequently done by other scientists or peers where previous theories have been proven erroneous) 8

To provide a better understanding of how these steps are performed, I will go through a short example to demonstrate how they could be applied to the question: Is the Earth really flat?

Defining the Question

In the process of finding out whether the Earth has a shape, other than being flat, someone may, after viewing a lunar eclipse and seeing that the shadow cast over the surface of the Moon is curved and does not form a straight line, come up with the idea that it could be circular or round in shape. An inquisitive person who lived in an earlier era, seeing that the Sun, Moon and planets have circular shapes, could have come to the same conclusion. The question alone answers nothing and some thought needs to go into how a person could answer this. The first thing that would happen is that people would instinctively start to gather data that will assist them in providing answers to their question.

Gathering Information

From the initial information a person has when considering a subject at hand, he may have formed some initial ideas on the properties or mechanics at work behind the issue. This would then help him define appropriate questions. Seeing that the Sun, Moon and planets are objects round in shape, it may naturally lead him to think that the Earth may also be round although he might be puzzled by the fact that he currently experiences and perceives it as being flat. If some of the questions that a scientist is asking himself have already been tested and where there is some groundwork and existing data, it is always better to start from a point where you will not have to "reinvent the wheel"- as long as the data and analysis is sound.

The next step is then to gather more information that will assist the scientist in understanding what kind of tests or experiments will best assist him to prove some facts that would answer his questions. These will help to form ideas around how to go about determining whether the perception that he has of the subject, is in fact true or false. This leads to a hypothesis where the scientist will normally say something along the lines of: "If I can prove that ____ and ____ is true, then it follows that my idea of _____ would be true and can be proven as factual."

Form a hypothesis

A hypothesis is a formulation of how a scientist anticipates the subject will behave or respond to certain criteria or when it is subjected to specific tests.21 This means that the scientist could have said something like: "After viewing the shapes of the Sun, the Moon and other planets to be circular and viewing the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon, I feel that the true shape of the Earth is not flat, as everyone believes, and if I can somehow compare the shape of the Earth with something that I know is flat and show that there is a difference, I may be able to prove my point."

A hypothesis is the scientist's best guess at how a subject would behave when subjected to certain tests. The initial hypothesis does not prove anything in itself. Even the experiments that are carried out, may not conclusively prove anything either. Only through a process of hypothesis formulation, experimentation on various aspects of the subject, data gathering and analysis of these data sets, does information start to emerge that could possibly be used to prove a hypothesis true and that it provides scientific proof that the earth is not flat. This can only be true; however, if all external and/or internal factors' influences on the subject are understood in such a way that ambiguity or misleading interpretations of the results are eliminated.

The information obtained from the experiments provides the scientist with more detail on the issues that he is considering and attempting to prove as factual. The onus is then on the scientist, who formed the hypothesis, to gather enough valid and clean data and to perform experiments with which he can then prove his hypothesis. It should be understood, that a scientist would always have a certain amount of bias towards the subject being considered. This means that if a scientist forms an opinion before even looking at any data, there is an inherent weakness built into the hypothesis. This weakness is based on preconceptions, personal opinions and philosophies, other scientific theories of the day and the currently accepted majority view, which could finally lead to the scientist intentionally avoiding or disregarding tests, that may prove his hypothesis as false. To keep an unbiased outlook when formulating a hypothesis is in all cases virtually impossible.

Perform Experiments and Collect Data

The next step in the process would be to perform experiments, which will allow the scientist to observe the behaviour of the subject and to compare the collected data from his experiments, to what he is expecting as per the hypothesis. It is also important to conduct experimentation under varying conditions and when multiple variables are in play. Vary only one variable at a time during a test when analysing altering conditions. Ensure that the experiment focuses on specific aspects of the subject in view, in such a way, that the results obtained from the experiment are relevant and can be trusted.

If any non-specific test is performed, the information it provides may offer no relative information in proving the hypothesis.

An example would be measuring the air temperature when trying to determine the shape of the Earth. This test would not be focused on the aspects that would ascertain whether the Earth has a shape other than being flat. It may only serve as clarification that the ambient temperature could be ruled out as a factor that would have an effect on the Earth's shape. It is important to note that the tests that are performed should be repeatable and should provide results that can be repeated, every time they are performed. In the "shape of the Earth" example that we are considering, a scientist may look for a way to test whether there is a possibility of the Earth not being flat. The first question the scientist would have to consider is: "How would I measure the shape of the Earth?" and secondly, "Where would I find a true representation of the shape of the Earth that I can view from my vantage point, which is on the Earth itself?" The scientist may initially struggle to come up with an answer for either question. Where to start and how to go about measuring the shape of the Earth, if the Earth is so vast?

At some point however, while looking for answers, he may see some ants walking on a huge boulder. To the scientist, the boulder, although not perfectly spherical, may seem like a round, semi-spherical object. He may then think, looking at the ant, that the ant probably sees the boulder as being flat, just as most people view the Earth and that it has to do with perspective and perception. He may then think: "If the Earth has similar properties in relationship to me, as the boulder has to the ant, I should be able to prove that it is not flat by travelling in one direction and at some point I should be back where I started. The only problem is that I do not have money for a boat to travel the oceans. I need to find a more economic method to measure the shape of the Earth."

After studying the ant on the boulder, he has a brilliant idea: "If I could find something that could be considered as being straight (like a ruler) and then measure the horizon, I might be able to prove my hypothesis." The scientist may try this and find that his results are inconclusive – there are too many mountains and valleys influencing the results. He then gets another brilliant idea to go to a spot where he has a good view of the ocean. The ocean does not have valleys or mountains that could affect his measurements and will provide a more representative shape of the Earth to measure against. Then, using the horizon in front of him (the line that forms between the surface of the ocean and the sky) he has found a valid location where he can perform an accurate measurement. He reasons that for best results, he should attempt to view as large a portion of the ocean as possible, to increase his perspective. Measuring should therefore be done on a calm day with good visibility (to increase the distance at which the horizon can be viewed) and to avoid external influences from the weather (limiting visibility or rough seas) on the experiment. (The ocean's surface can be considered a good representation of the actual shape of the Earth, as the water should be levelled out on the surface). If the ruler is then held up and the shape of the horizon is compared with that of the ruler, the scientist will notice that the shape of the horizon differs slightly from that of the ruler and that there is some curvature evident in the results that are obtained. (i.e. if one lines up one corner of a ruler with a point on the horizon where the ocean's surface meets the sky, and also do the same for the opposite corner on the ruler, the centre of the ruler will not cover the ocean in the middle and a slight bulge will be noticed in the middle of the ruler where the ocean would rise above the ruler.)

The scientist can then repeat this experiment from a different location overlooking a different ocean to obtain additional sets of data. He could do the measurements at different times of the day and even different seasons to ensure that different conditions are met - summer, winter, early in the morning, at noon, in the afternoon, in differing weather conditions - where the same facts can be viewed. He can also make use of other measuring instruments (differing lengths of rulers and other straight objects) to prove both repeatability of the experiment and accurate results for different locations and conditions.

Analyse Data

Once the scientist has collected sufficient sets of data, he can then examine the data and draw some conclusions. If the information shows that in all cases the shape of the oceans show curvatures, the scientist can conclude that the Earth must have a shape, other than being flat. Taking measurements, as described above, obviously does not convey much information, but it may prove to assist the scientist in forming new hypotheses.

New hypotheses will result in new experiments. It will assist the scientist to obtain more information to illuminate the subject and improve the accuracy, showing how results match or differ from the hypothesis.

Finally, it may be possible to establish that the Earth is not only flat, but also spherical, which could be concluded from measuring the shape of the oceans from different directions and different locations. It is always advantageous to employ different testing methodology to increase the resolution that is obtained from the result and assist the scientist in drawing a more accurate conclusion. One type of test alone may not provide sufficient information to prove a hypothesis as true.

Interpret Data

Once the collected data has been analysed by the scientist, he will then have information that can be compared with the hypothesis. If the data matches the hypothesis in all cases and takes into consideration the effects of all external influences, the hypothesis will be seen as proven - although, as humans, our ability to understand will always be limited to some degree, due to our dimensionality and locality. The next statement is very important in science and without diligently applying it to any subject being researched, the scientific method is voided and results can no longer be considered proper science. If any fact is obtained that goes against any of the results that the hypothesis is expecting to achieve, the hypothesis is proven incorrect and the scientist will have to construct a new hypothesis.6

In our example above, the scientist will compare the shape that the ocean forms with the sky on the horizon to that of something that he knows is straight, i.e. a ruler. He will notice the difference between the calibrated standard and the test subject and will conclude that the shape of the Earth cannot be flat, since the shape of the horizon differs from that of the ruler which is straight or flat. The finding only tells him that the shape of the Earth does not seem to be flat. Without some trigonometry, it will not provide much information, other than confirming that the shape of the earth is not flat. The scientist's hypothesis, based on his results thus far, is therefore considered true, until evidence to the contrary is provided that would prove that the Earth's shape is indeed flat – which we today know, is not possible.

Publish Results

The scientist may then publish a paper on his finding with all relevant information pertaining to the subject. In his paper, the scientist will include the reasoning behind his hypothesis; how he conducted the experiments and what his final results were. He would also need to mention any aspects that he would consider as external influences or factors that may have distorted his results, for instance that although he measured ambient temperature, it had no effect on the experiment. This is then available to the scientific community for scrutiny.

Retest

Once the scientist publishes his findings, peer reviews will follow. During this time a number of other scientists, interested in the same field of study, may elect to conduct similar experiments to see if their results are similar to that of the original scientist. They may want to conduct additional experiments to test aspects the original scientist did not consider or may have overlooked. They may opt to test the theory by travelling around the world and see if they can get back to the same place they started from, by following the Sun.

Unlike the first scientist, they may have funding for such an undertaking. If they are able to provide conclusive results that they were able to travel around the world and not fall off the Earth, until they arrived back at their starting point, by travelling in one direction only, they would have provided more conclusive evidence and additional resolution for the original hypothesis. They may also be able to calculate roughly the circumference of the Earth, based on their travel speed and the time it took to circumnavigate the Earth.

This is only a simple example, but will hopefully serve to explain the process of scientific research to those who are not familiar with it.

We would then also have to ask ourselves: What are the differences between Hypotheses and Theories? A Hypothesis is a "best guess" or a tentative explanation by an observer who is asking a question about a subject and describes his ideas on the properties of a specific subject to the best of his knowledge.22 It also serves as a guide in experiments that are performed to obtain a better result. It does not mean that it is necessarily correct.

A "Theory" is an explanation of general principles under which a subject would operate and would also provide considerable facts to support this.22 Both a theory and a hypothesis are only valid as long as all evidence that is collected continues to support the said theory or hypothesis. As explained earlier: If any piece of information becomes available that goes against the theory or hypothesis, even if the theory had been viewed as true for centuries by most people, the theory or hypothesis, as proposed, is disproven and has to be revised or discarded.

Science Today

There are many theories today that have been researched in great detail, having volumes of provable facts in the form of supporting evidence to maintain the status of proven scientific theory. According to Chomsky, even living in a technological advanced society, there remains some theories out there that are really nothing more than enforced viewpoints or abstractions of information that are being forced into the minds of society via channels such as the media.23

These enforced viewpoints are sometimes covertly controlled and portrayed as facts by the media, the scientific community, government and other groups. This is done so convincingly and with such assertiveness, that even scientific evidence which clearly disproves accepted theories, are blatantly rejected and coined as uneducated viewpoints or old-fashioned beliefs. At the same time, should a person elect to adopt an opposing viewpoint to that held by the majority, they are quickly silenced, either through ridicule, rage or rejection. Thus any evidence they have to support their views, is denied any media exposure, just because it does not conform to the mainstream viewpoint.

Keeping an open mind and pursuing the truth is no longer a matter of concern or even a priority. Looking at this situation objectively, one has to wonder what or who is behind all of this? What are the motives for wanting people to blindly cling to fallacies that have evidence accumulating against them and which can no longer be objectively considered scientific? What are the motives for doing so and why keep on believing in something that is proven false?

The Theory of Evolution is a good example of such an instance. When considering life, the Universe and where everything around us came from, one would normally side with one of two options: You either believe that the Universe, our solar system and life on Earth, came to be as a matter of chance and that Evolution explains the reason for the diversity of life on our planet; or you believe that a Creator was responsible for creating the Universe and life as we see it today.24

Either way, whichever view you adopt, it will have a profound impact on the way you perceive the evidence presented and found in the world around us today. It will also affect your assumptions regarding the evidence and how to interpret it to fit the view or philosophy that you have adopted. Let us look at these two viewpoints and consider them from a scientific basis.

The Theory of Evolution

The hypothesis that life spontaneously developed on Earth over extended periods of time, spanning into billions of years, was coined the Evolution Theory and is said to have emerged with the publishing of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" in 1859.25 Actually, the idea of Evolution is much older than this, as we will demonstrate later. Darwin noticed that many varieties of organisms within a species occurred over time and believed that these differences were a result of natural selection or the survival of the strongest. He also believed that the same mechanism was at work to produce the diverse varieties of life-forms that we have on earth today. From his observations he concluded that all life-forms had to come from a common ancestor, millions of years ago.

With the introduction of the Theory of Evolution, many people who previously accepted the account of the Creation as true (as it is described in the book of Genesis in the Bible) now had to deal with new, seemingly true, but unverifiable information about our origin. This resulted in a number of forced questions and paradigm shifts being introduced into people's minds. People, who previously had no doubts about the validity of the information as presented in the Bible, were now confronted with a situation in which they had to make a choice. They had to choose between an account of Creation as described in an old religious book - the validity of the information contained in the Bible, questioned by many and seemingly difficult to prove truthful - or the scientific findings of people who seemingly have more up-to-date knowledge of the matter. Their studies are also more recent and involved more advanced techniques than those applied in the writing of the Bible, would probably provide a more reliable basis for truth. How does one then go about choosing the correct version - if either of these could even be considered correct - and what does one use as a basis for belief in making that choice? These are some of the issues I would like to address in the next few chapters.

The Evolution Theory altered and transformed the thoughts and concepts people previously held about where we came from, what our purpose is while we are on Earth and what will happen to us when we pass away. Today the Theory of Evolution is said to be accepted as true by the majority of members of the scientific community and also regarded as a proven and accepted science by vast numbers of people in the general population.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, Evolution is the only option currently taught in most public schools and the Creation account is no longer supported and in some cases even forbidden to be discussed in many schools.26 A person in the scientific community would lose his credibility if he should change his view from being Pro-Evolution to that of Pro-Creation - he would find himself and his career at a dead-end.

When you switch your TV to the National Geographic channel, you will often encounter programs in which dates are quoted that go back millions, if not billions, of years. Keeping in mind that theories should always be formed by applying the scientific method to distinguish facts from fiction, a question which immediately comes to mind is: How did these scientists go about obtaining accurate answers for the dates that are thrown at you every few minutes?

If the commentator states with confidence that a specific event occurred 82 million years ago, how do they guarantee that this date is accurate and what are the margins for error? Are they sure this was 82 million years ago or could it have been 74 million years ago, or even 106 million years, maybe? Furthermore, how do they know for certain that conditions on Earth have remained 100% constant over these long periods of time? How do they account for possible changes that may have occurred, either cosmic or terrestrial, which we cannot account for today, given our dimensional limitations? Is it possible to accurately date anything, when we have no idea of how conditions on Earth may have changed over time? How do we know how possible changes may have influenced the way we date a specimen or rock strata today?

Many people would immediately refer to radiometric dating to confirm these dates, but this has also been proven to be totally unreliable.27 To explain what happens with radiometric dating, is to compare it to a situation in which athletes are running a marathon. You arrive at the track with the race already underway and the timekeeper comes to you and gives you his watch and tells you to keep the time. When you look at the watch, you see that it does not have a stopwatch; it only gives the time at that moment as five minutes past one in the afternoon.

The watch does not tell you how many laps the runners have completed, or when the race actually started. You do not even know by looking at the watch, whether it is accurate or whether it is losing or gaining time. One cannot tell whether the race has just started or whether it is close to the end. By looking at the runners' performance one may get an idea of the situation by evaluating their stamina or their perspiration, but this could be very misleading, since it might be a hot and humid day. You have no idea when the race started and any opinion about conditions on the track and the condition of the runners will be pure speculation.

With radiometric dating, the situation is very similar. Scientists will do radiometric dating on an object and then apply a philosophy for explaining the "time" that is given on the watch. We can only evaluate objects in the present and we have no way of knowing what influences may have impacted on the object over time. Conditions on Earth may have changed considerably - even in recent history, as we will later demonstrate - and there may have been cosmological influences on the Earth that are not accounted for in the conclusions that are drawn. There are also many examples of radiometric dating methods that provide totally unreliable information. These could include different body parts of the same animal being tested and dated in such a way that it even differs by many millennia.28

In other cases live specimens have been tested and said to be several thousands of years old. In most cases radiometric dates, that do not match the expected dates of a scientist's hypothesis, are rejected, and only those that match the hypothesis, are used. This is not good science according to the scientific method. For something to be scientifically valid; one should be able to extract repeatable results from tests that are performed and any techniques employed, should provide at least accurate results on lab samples for which the expected age of the specimen is well known.

If you are to put your faith in a methodology that is giving semi-random results, can you really rely on it as a solid basis for dating a specimen? Would it be accurate to assume that the conditions that we encounter on Earth today are exactly the same as the conditions of a few million years ago? If changes did occur, what were they and how did they impact the Earth and life on it? When did they occur and what tests could be carried out to test the conditions of the past?

These are all unknowns that clearly stand out as issues, which will affect the validity of claims that are made about conditions on the Earth in the past. They are, nevertheless, overlooked completely when presenting information as "Evolutionary facts".

Imaginary historic events said to have occurred millions of years ago are consistently presented without providing scientific proof. It is actually very amusing to hear these people talk about the correctness of their dates for which they were able to accurately determine the age of a specimen. These "facts" are speculative only. There exists no reliable and repeatable method of collecting data for events that occurred in the distant past by which we could measure the accuracy of the dates that are flung at us in documentaries about the Earth's history or the conditions that existed on Earth. The reason I say this, is because nobody living today is able to identify all of the factors that would have worked in on a specimen that is analysed, especially if a scientist claims that it is billions of years old.

Scientists cannot be sure, or prove, that conditions on the Earth remained unchanged over time as they theorise it should have. They have no way of knowing or proving that cosmological influences and effects on the Earth would have remained unchanged over billions of years. These are all aspects that need to be considered if the scientific method is to be properly applied. If these aspects are not properly considered, evaluated and tested when performing an investigation, we can be sure that the conclusions will be erroneous.

Darwin surmises in his book that because of the differences that occur in specific kinds of animals, all life on Earth must have spontaneously evolved from a common ancestor. This he based on his observations of the diversity that is evident in many different species. He also assumed that natural selection, which is the concept that suggests that only the strongest of a species would survive, was the process responsible for this phenomenon. From this Darwin then concluded that this process also led to one species evolving into the next, from primitive to more advanced life forms. Furthermore, he implied that it would have taken billions of years for these changes to have occurred. There is, however, no evidence for this, other than that of micro-evolution, mutations or variation within species which occurs today. If all the facts are considered, as the theory proposes, there are many loose ends - absence of evidence that is expected to be found abundantly according to the hypothesis - even provable facts that go directly against what the theory would have you believe. Yet, these theories are held as the only acceptable explanation for our existence and any opposing theory, such as that of Creation, is suppressed and given little or no exposure today.

Let us consider some of the foundations on which the Theory of Evolution is built and compare it with known facts that can now be proved:

The Geologic Column

One of the pillars on which Evolution relies, is what is known as the Geologic Column.29 To the man in the street, one of the most impressive arguments for an ancient Earth is the testimony of sedimentary-rock layers (many of which are hundreds of feet thick) found all over the planet. These contain fossils of animals and organisms that supposedly lived millions of years ago. According to the Evolution Theory, life emerged out of a pre-biotic soup from which the building blocks of life came together and accidentally formed the first life form. This life form then evolved over millions of years into more complex life forms through the process of natural selection.30

The different strata, or layers of rock, are especially evident in locations such as the Grand Canyon, where vast sections of these layers are exposed and where a phenomenal side-view of these sedimentary deposits can be seen. According to the Theory of Evolution, these layers of sedimentary rock have accumulated one on top of the other, over millions, if not billions, of years under conditions and processes that were essentially similar to what we have on the planet Earth today. Animals, organisms and plant material that died during these eras were trapped in the deposited strata and these specimens then fossilised over millions of years. This view is also called the "Uniformitarian view" and it assumes that all processes have gradually taken place over many years.31 It negates the possibility of having situations in which cataclysmic events, such as that of a world-wide flood as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible, could have contributed to the evidence before us.

The Uniformitarian view is then also proposed as evidence, which demonstrates that the Earth is supposedly billions of years old. This view is based on the different layers of rock which would certainly have required a lot of time to form, if deposited under the prevailing environmental conditions around us today. The age of the rock layer is determined by the kind of fossils found in the layer, or stratum.32

This is done based on the apparent complexity of organisms, as they supposedly evolved over millions of years and moved from sea-living to land animals and birds. Up to this point everything sounds very plausible and impressive to the general public and educational media, until one considers some of the assumptions, flaws and omissions that are conveniently ignored.

The Geologic Column, as it is described, provides a supposed historic account of the progression of life over billions of years, from single-celled organisms out of the primordial soup, into the various living creations that we have on Earth today.

" _Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence."_ Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Adler and Adler, 1985), 261.33

Although Evolution attempts to deal with the mechanism for modification over time between different kinds of organisms, it also relies completely on "spontaneous generation" of life on Earth. The Evolution Theory also proposes that life and the first living organism evolved spontaneously out of a rock soup, billions of years ago on a so-called "primitive Earth". From the fossil record there is however no supporting evidence to support this claim. No fossil of any intermediate creatures or organisms, which would have lived between the eras in which the very simplest life forms are found and those that we see around us today, have ever been found.

The Cambrian explosion is the first piece of evidence, which places a question mark over the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Fossils found in Cambrian strata and considered to be part of the Cambrian era, seem to suddenly appear in abundance, without having any predecessors that evolved in rock strata before that stage.34

At the time when the Theory of Evolution was formulated, many scientists believed that since they did not have access to the complete fossil record and with their limited understanding of the complexity of life, that the Theory will yet be proven in the future, once more research is carried out in this field, the technology improves and more fossils are uncovered.

Today we know that the fossil record has been extensively researched and although many additional fossils have been uncovered, nowhere has any evidence emerged that would point out why there are no precursors to the abundance of life that is found in the Cambrian layer. Even considering the older strata below the Cambrian age, tiny fossils of sponge embryos are found, that point to fossilisation positively occurring even on the soft tissue of these animals, but these layers are void of any predecessors to the life forms that are found in the Cambrian strata. This phenomenon, which does not fit the Theory of Evolution, is also encountered all over the world and highlights the same issue.

Another leading matter is that of the "simple" trilobite which is considered to be a primitive life form, which had a complex eye with a dual lens system.35 How does the fact that you have a primitive life form – considered by evolutionists to be some of the very first to live on earth – with no identifiable predecessors and possessing complex visual apparatus, fit in with the Theory of Evolution? This is not the only issue that Evolutionists have to deal with; there is also the complete lack of evidence for transitional forms existing between species, when transitioning from one species to the next. Even with the extensive fossil record that we have today, it is no longer an issue of finding the elusive missing links between any species, although some may argue that the fossil record is still incomplete.

The fact is that the extensively researched fossil record, which we have today, does not provide one strand of evidence in favour of Evolution, where a species would evolve from one form into the next. The only evolution, for which supported evidence exists, is that of microevolution. These are the adaptations within a species through mutations or variations, which were noticed by Darwin and which inspired him to formulate his Theory.

Let us consider some of the other facts around the Geologic Column a little closer: The Geologic Column is nowhere seen in the rock strata exactly, or as accurately, as it is presented on paper. Scientists, geologists or archaeologists may stumble upon a specific layer of rock and find specific fossils in it and then deduce that the layer must belong to the Cambrian, Jurassic, Cretaceous or some other historic era. In some cases, when comparing two sets of strata, located at different points on the earth, there would be instances where a layer found in one set, is missing in another. In other cases the order of the layers is inverted and older fossils are found above those that would be considered younger.36

If the processes that formed the strata occurred gradually over millions of years, there is no reason why a geologic era would be missing from certain areas on Earth. Neither would there be a reason why it would have happened out of sync or in the reversed order. This fact in itself is contradictory to the Theory of Evolution and also to the Uniformitarian View.

Secondly, we have the fossil record itself. Most Evolutionists will hold the view that the fossils that are found within the strata around the world are remains of animals that were covered in sediment over many epochs of time that passed over the Earth. They believe that the fossils we see today are of animals and organisms that lived millions of years ago. This all sounds very plausible, if one elects not to consider the scientific method. We need to pause here for a while and ask ourselves: How do fossils form in the first place?

Secondly: What conditions have to be met for a fossil to form?

And thirdly, Can we perform some tests to prove these theories, concerning fossilisation and the time periods, irrefutable from evidence?

Is fossilisation something that we notice occurring in abundance around us today? If someone asked us to point out examples of fossilisation currently occurring, we would have a difficult time in doing so. We could refer to some fossilised specimens, which date back to events of the past in which we know that the conditions were quite special and led to the process. Most people would not think of fossilisation as something occurring on a regular basis today, whether this is a result of how we think about the world or just the fact that we do not see fossils forming and so have a reference to work from. Yet, when we consider the fossil evidence from past eras, we do find situations conducive to fossil formation on a global scale. Similar fossils are found in various layers of the mineralisation rock all around the world and often the preservation is immaculate – internal organs, soft tissues like eyes, antennae and insect wings and sometimes even the stomach contents.

When it comes to fossilisation, here are some aspects that can be deduced, viewing it from the viewpoint of Evolution:

**A: --** Sediment was deposited over long periods of time (millions of years) to form the strata that we find in the Geologic Column.

**B: --** Animals that died in eras past were covered by this sediment under favourable conditions and their bodies underwent mineralisation over millions of years, to give us the fossil record of today.

**C: --** The different fossils that are found in different strata indicate that life took different shapes over geological eras extending over millions of years.

If we consider these assumptions carefully, we will quickly notice some contradicting facts that do not fit a scientific analysis of the picture painted by Evolution. How do fossils form and what conditions are required for a fossil to form? Fossils do not form unless very specific conditions are met:

**A: --** Decomposition should be prevented and would require a plant, an animal or any other organism to be completely covered in sediment, before decomposition can set in.

**B: --** Groundwater must be present: In the case of specimens found in the Geologic Column, fossilisation can only occur once a specimen interacts with mineralized groundwater. This means that a fossil can only form, if a specimen with any detail is deposited in sediment where groundwater can interact with it over a period of time.

**C: --** Decay of the specimen should be prevented. Encapsulation should happen over a relatively short period - preventing the onset of decay by removing any factors that would aid decaying agents from interacting with the specimen through predators, bacteria and/or environmental impacts. Covering biological material under some dirt will not suffice and will not prevent decay from setting in.

**D: --** Sunlight, oxygen and organisms requiring oxygen, which may aid in decomposition, should be completely removed over a relatively short period of time. If the animal or plant, dead or alive, is not covered in sufficient sediment, any exposure to oxygen will prevent fossilisation and the specimen will decompose. Burial under sediment should be deep enough to prevent oxygen from reaching the specimen.

Once the conditions above have been met, fossilisation can occur when the original organic material is replaced over time (sometimes in a matter of a few years only) by minerals as water seeps through the geological structure and deposits minerals where the specimen is found and thus replaces the original organic structure with minerals. 37

If one is to believe the Uniformitarian view, of gradual changes being responsible in any way for the fossil record, it is impossible to explain how fossils could form. According to the Uniformitarian view, organic matter would have been exposed to decaying elements while sediment was accumulating around these specimens over thousands, if not millions, of years.

The Evolution Theory and promoters thereof would have you believe that conditions today would be mostly the same as the conditions during eras past. So if an animal or plant dies today, why do we not have ample examples of new fossils forming? Does it really require millions of years for them to form? Let us analyse this further.

If animals or plants die under normal conditions today, their carcasses or remains will usually not be covered in sediment immediately – except if by some form of catastrophic burial such as a mud- or landslide. The remains would normally be exposed to the atmosphere where oxygen, decaying agents, scavengers and the Sun would play a major role in what happens to the remains. The remains will rot and degenerate under the sun's ultraviolet rays, before it could be covered with enough sediment deposited by natural means for fossilisation to occur. Even if an animal carcass or plant is covered with some sediment under normal conditions, the remains would not be isolated in an anoxic environment that would prevent it from further decay. Under normal conditions there would be little to nothing left to form fossil evidence. After a few decades all that may be left of the dead animal would be some brittle bones and perhaps bony or hard tissue. It would be very rare indeed to have situations where fossils of plants or animals would form, preserving the finest detail in our world today.

We would also not expect to see a fossil forming on anything that is still alive, since the fossilisation process itself would kill the organism. There is also no record in modern history of situations where fossils are forming on the same scale as we see evident in the Geologic Column, where we see similar organisms fossilised across the globe and in some cases preserved intact with immaculate detail – including many soft tissues.

Can we therefore assume that conditions on this earth have always been the same? What about the discrepancies between what we see around us today and the fact that we have well preserved fossils found in rock layers? Where fossils somehow formed in the past under conditions that are obviously different to conditions today?

What we do find, however, is that fossilisation occurs naturally and easily as a result of cataclysmic events. This is evident, for example, in the eruption of Vesuvius next to Pompeii, where people and artefacts were buried in volcanic ash, or in the mudflows that resulted from Mount St. Helens' eruption in 1980, which buried entire forests. These phenomena occur on a relatively small scale today and are mostly localised. However, they provide valuable information on the processes involved when fossilisation occurs and also show that it can occur over a period of as little as a few years or a number of decades. The small scale cataclysm at Mount St. Helen remain a long way off the magnitude of the cataclysm that would have been responsible for the fossilisation of the vast quantity of animals and plants found in the sedimentary layers across the globe and the oil and coal deposits that formed as a result.

From the fossil record a case for instantaneous encapsulation, preventing any form of decomposition to occur, is clearly evident. There is a clear discrepancy when comparing the explanation of historic events as described by Evolutionists (citing the apparent age of the Geologic Column, in which fossils of animals such as whales or 80-foot dinosaurs were preserved) with the processes that would cause fossilisation today. According to the Evolutionists, these processes occurred over millions of years under conditions similar to what we have today. How then can we find large animal fossils, showing detailed preservation of even their soft tissues, internal organs, stomach content and skin, in rock layers that are considered to be millions of years old?

The Cretaceous Era for instance is divided into a lower and upper section and according to the Uniformitarian timescale, considered by Evolutionists to span a total of about 80 million years.38 An archaeologist or palaeontologist on discovering the fossilised remains of a dinosaur, such as a Tyrannosaurus Rex, in a rock stratum would link it to the Cretaceous era. Now if one considers that Evolutionists calculate the specific band in which the fossil is found to span about 5 million years, according to the Uniformitarian timescale, it should have taken thousands of years to completely cover the dinosaur's body in sediment. Until this animal's remains were covered deep enough in sediment to prevent any decaying agents' access, decay would have had priority.

From the evidence in the fossil remains, we know that some of the soft tissue of the dinosaur was preserved. Soft tissue would be the first to decay and if left exposed to the environment, would disappear in a matter of weeks. If it is argued that the death of the dinosaur may have been attributed to natural causes - old age or being killed by some disease or other predator - and was immediately covered by a mudslide this would be a valid explanation for the fossilisation of the animal. This would however render the estimation of the age of the strata in which the fossil is found, incorrect, since a time span of 5 million years would not fit this scenario. One would then have to adjust that period to the time span in which the mudslide took place, which would be a few minutes only.

Can we then accept that fossilisation on a global scale, (including many examples where soft tissue had been preserved) could in any way be possible under the Uniformitarian view? It does not make scientific sense. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. The process of fossilisation requires quick deposition of sediment, rendering the assumed age of the strata incorrect according to the Uniformitarian view. On the other hand, the Uniformitarian view requires slow deposition of sediment. This makes the preservation of biological detail especially that of soft tissues which we can clearly see from the fossil record, totally impossible and gives priority to decomposition instead of fossilisation.

The assumption, that the fossilisation process and the age of the Geological Column under the Uniformitarian view are both true at the same time, is therefore illogical and this can also be proven scientifically. It is clear that there are assumptions made and forced onto people that do not match natural processes and can be easily disproven, given some logical thought.

Another fact that refutes the claims of how the Geologic Column formed is that of polystratic fossils or fossils that span multiple rock strata. A modern day example of such an occurrence was demonstrated in mudflows that were caused by the eruption of Mount St. Helens.

Embedded in sedimentary rocks all over the globe and also in the Mount St. Helens area are found what is known as "polystrate" (or polystratic) fossils.39 Scientists who subscribe to the Evolution Theory do not accept the term "polystrate fossils, although it refers to a fossil that occupies more than one layer of rock or strata. The existence of these fossils is further proof that some of the concepts on the dating of geological strata do not match the evidence found.

N.A. Rupke, a young geologist from the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, first coined the term "polystrate fossils" ( _see Morris, 1970, p. 102_ ). Polystrate means "many layers," and refers to fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers. Henry Morris discussed polystrate fossils in his book, "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science", where he first explained the process of stratification.40

" _Stratification (or layered sequence) is a universal characteristic of sedimentary rocks. A stratum of sediment is formed by deposition under essentially continuous and uniform hydraulic conditions. When the sedimentation stops for a while before another period of deposition, the new stratum will be visibly distinguishable from the earlier by a stratification line (actually a surface). Distinct strata also result when there is a change in the velocity of flow or other hydraulic characteristics. Sedimentary beds as now found are typically composed of many "strata," and it is in such beds that most fossils are found"_ (1970: 101, parenthetical items in orig.) 40

Morris then explains that

" _large fossils...are found which extend through several strata, often 20 feet or more in thickness" (p. 102)._

Ken Ham has noted:

" _There are a number of places on the earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called 'polystrate fossils'" (2000: 138)._ 41

Such phenomena clearly violate the idea of a gradually accumulated geologic column since, generally speaking, an evolutionary overview of that column suggests that each stratum (layer) was laid down over thousands or even millions of years.

As Scott Huse remarked in his book, "The Collapse of Evolution":

" _Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it" (1997: 96)._ 42

This poses a clear problem to Evolutionist theory when considering the Geologic Column. When applying the scientific method to this issue, the hypothesis states that the geological layers that make up the Geologic Column, formed over millions of years and as we have seen in our analysis of the scientific method: "If any evidence emerges that goes against what the theory suggests, the theory is disproven and requires a new hypothesis."

With regards to the Geologic Column, the existence of polystratic fossils, not only for trees, but in some cases also for animals, such as whales, that are found to span more than one layer of sedimentary rock, clearly indicate that the layers of sediment were deposited over a short period of time. Decay would have removed any evidence if any part of the specimen was exposed to the atmosphere.

Another question to ask is: "How does a large whale get trapped in more than one layer of sediment over thousands of years and undergo fossilisation at the same time?" Today, we do not see whale fossils forming around us, since they either expire in the ocean, are scavenged by predators like sharks, or are stranded on a beach where other scavengers or decaying agents take care of the remains.

How can a whale then be instantly removed from an environment in which it is constantly exposed to oxygen and organisms that promote decay, and be trapped within multiple sedimentary layers where all decaying factors are removed and the body is preserved for mineralisation? The only explanation that could fit such a scenario is a major catastrophic event in which enough sediment would flood into an ocean, replacing the water and covering even large creatures such as whales, in a relatively short period of time. Some articles in which Evolutionists discuss the evolution of whales, they would refer to whale fossils in which they have found foetuses of unborn whales. At the same time, they do not explain the conditions that would be required for obtaining a fossil of this nature. If you look at these discoveries scientifically and consider the normal processes involved, you would find the following:

A pregnant whale cow may die, and as some of the Evolutionists speculate, they may even have crawled out onto a beach to give birth. However, whether the whale died on the beach or in the water, under normal conditions it would quickly be attacked by decay or scavengers which would also destroy the foetus after a few weeks or even a month or two. Finally, one would not expect to see the remains of the foetus in the correct position within the cow, if decay is allowed to run its course, or if scavengers are feeding off of the carcass, for even a short period of time. Yet, this is what is found in these fossils. The only scientific explanation would be the rapid encapsulation of a specimen, which allows fossilisation to occur and to preserve the finest details, even soft tissue in the correct position. This is even more applicable to specimens that span multiple layers of strata.

If we consider a polystratic fossilised tree or animal encapsulated in multiple rock layers and look at some of the facts, there are a few things to consider:

Firstly, according to the Theory of Evolution the fossils of a tree or animal found imbedded in the layers of rock indicates different geological eras and therefore span millions of years.

Secondly, we have a tree or animal which fossilised, instead of going through the normal decomposition process. So how do we know whether the tree is millions of years old, or the layers of rock that we see around the tree today, were deposited rapidly? Well, simple logic will give the answer. We can count the fossilised tree rings to find the age of the tree. If the age of the tree does not match the supposed age of the rock layers it is found in, then it logically follows that sediment was deposited rapidly around the tree and the age that has been assigned to the rock layers, is false.

(As a side note: Mineralisation of an object does not require millions of years to occur and fossilisation of an organic object can happen in a matter of only a few years under the right conditions. During fossilisation, the original organic material such as skin, bones, wood etc. is replaced by minerals and all that is left when the fossil is found, is a replica made up of minerals of the original object. This is also why DNA is difficult to obtain from fossils, since the original organic material has been substituted by minerals.)43

Many Evolutionists have commented on the phenomena in which trees are found upright and spanning multiple strata. Trevor Major commented that these upright trees, which are found in some coal beds, do not represent the remains of trees growing in a swamp, but rather the effects of a flood or similar disaster.

After discussing the effects of the May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Trevor Major commented:

" _...upright tree stumps found in many coal beds represent, not the remains of trees growing in a peat swamp, but the effects of a flood or similar disaster"_ (1996, p. 16).44

William J. Fritz, an Evolutionist, recognised the phenomenon in fossilised trees at Yellowstone National Park and stated:

" _I do not think that entire Eocene forests were preserved in situ [in place—JD/BT] even though some upright trees apparently were preserved where they grew"_ (1980a, p. 313, emp. Added).45

In another article published the same year in the same scientific journal, Fritz wrote:

" _Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone "fossil forests" were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens"_ (1980b: 588).46

In his book, "The Creation-Evolution Controversy", R.L. Wysong presents a photograph of another extremely unusual polystrate tree. The caption underneath a photograph of the tree describes it as follows:

" _This fossil tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggests that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise the tree would have rotted and collapsed"_ (1976, p. 366; see Nevins, 1974, 10[4]:191-207 for additional details).47

The fact that entire forests are found in the form of polystratic fossils goes directly against the idea that sediment was deposited around these trees over periods of millions of years. Any other scenario than that of a quick burial of material will ultimately lead to the decomposition or rotting of the plant material, long before mineralisation could set in.

Thirdly, the Evolutionary view would have you believe that a tree can survive in an upright position and stay alive for millions of years while the Earth goes through geological eras. Looking at these claims objectively, the assumption would be that you have a living tree, since as soon as a tree dies it would rot or decompose, unless it is isolated from decomposing factors such as oxygen and bacterial organisms. While this tree is alive, the earth moves through different ages having different climates, while vast numbers of species are evolving and evidence of their existence and evolution is deposited in the sedimentary layers that accumulate around the tree. The tree should then be millions of years old and yet the petrified tree-rings that are visible in some of these polystratic trees clearly indicate that these trees were not millions of years old. The sediment that was deposited around the tree - forming different strata in the process – therefore had to have been deposited over a short period of time.

The oldest tree that we have on earth today is believed to be a bristle-cone pine, dated at just over 4,000 years old.48 If trees could survive for millions of years, as the Evolution Theory suggests, why do we not have several examples of trees today that are at least older than 4,000 years?

The problem that the Evolution Theory presents is that one has to believe something that is clearly demonstrated to be false. It is a theory where facts are omitted if they do not match the philosophy and any evidence to the contrary is blatantly rejected or ridiculed. This goes directly against what science stands for and one then has to ask how this is not considered religion, but accepted science. The Evolutionary viewpoint is riddled with evidence that indicates that the hypotheses, which were adopted around the Earth being billions of years old, are clearly false.

The Uniformitarian view is self-contradictory, since if conditions on Earth have not changed much since the eras in which huge Dinosaurs, such as Brachiosaurus or the T-Rex, lived, why did they form fossils and not decay? If the same processes were at work during their lifetime as we have today, we would have expected scavengers, decomposition and normal decay to have disposed of any evidence before anything could fossilise. This is not the case and we see evidence, which can only be explained as a catastrophic burial of specimens, which then created the right conditions for fossilisation to occur.

Another obstacle to prove the authenticity of Evolution, is the fact that animals which were found in the fossil records that are estimated to date back to between 360 and 65 million years ago, suddenly show up as alive today. These specimens do not show the expected effects on their current forms of the mechanics that Evolution proposes. The Coelacanth is a good example. This fish is said to have become extinct in the late Mesozoic era, but a live specimen was found in 1938 and others on several other occasions after that. The fish still resembles the same form as is found in the fossil record, with no visible adaptations or alterations.49

One of the most recent examples of a living fossil, according to Wieland, is the Wollemi Pine, found in a gorge in the Blue Mountains, 200 kilometres west of Sydney, Australia. The Wollemi Pine was thought extinct since the Jurassic period- about 150 million years ago on the Uniformitarian timescale. This means that the Wollemi Pine should exist in strata between the Jurassic and the present. One researcher described the discovery as "finding a live dinosaur" (Wieland, 1995).50 No evolution of the Wollemi Pine has occurred for an alleged 150 million years. Given its absence in strata younger than "Jurassic," those 150 million years which are proposed to have spanned the Jurassic period up until today, may never have existed. One would expect abundant Wollemi Pine fossils during this 150 million-year period.

A better scenario explaining the sudden appearance of an extinct plant or fish for example, would be a catastrophic burial, which affected the entire globe about 4,500 to 5,000 years ago, during a world-wide environmental disaster, of which there is mention in the Bible.

If the Evolution Theory was factual, the fossil record should also have contained at least 50% more transitional forms for each specimen found. However, no transitional forms have ever been found for any organism. When micro-evolution or mutations and adaptations within a specific species are evident i.e. you get various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etc. As these varieties are crossbred, new breeds and different looking specimens of the same species emerge – nowhere does a species of animal, convert or change from one kind to another. Any transitional forms that exist between different kinds, either living or fossilised, remain clearly absent in all cases from the evidence we have before us. There are billions of missing links today and without them and the evidence as discussed above, Evolution is not really a logical option, but requires a lot of faith in something that is clearly conjecture only.

The largest collection of fossils in the world is found in the British Museum of Natural History. Dr Colin Patterson was the Senior Palaeontologist at the Museum and a well-known expert on the fossil record. He is also the editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson wrote a book for the museum entitled "Evolution" and did not include any examples of transitional fossils in the book.

" _...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."_ Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, 1988: 88-90.51

In all cases where scientists have searched for the transition forms, as the Evolution Theory would have us believe, they have come up empty-handed. Not one example of a transitional species has ever been found anywhere in the world since the time of Darwin. Evolutionists are becoming uneasy about this fact and are realising that they can no longer blame the lack of evidence on scarcity of fossil samples. As with any subject put under scientific scrutiny: If no evidence in support of a theory can be found, or evidence to the contrary of a theory is evident; the theory or hypothesis is no longer viable and has to be modified or rejected.

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote the following:

" _Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them",_ Evolution, vol. 28: 467.52

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, wrote in his book "The Earth Before Man":

" _My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."_ Nilsson quoted in "The Earth Before Man", p.51.53

Something very rarely encountered is mention of this problem in the news media:

In an article from Newsweek, "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" The author writes as follows:

" _The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated." "Is Man a Subtle Accident?",_ Newsweek, November 3, 1980.54

While the evidence has left Evolutionists with red faces, some of them have even tried to provide evidence to prove the theory and to keep the dream alive:

" _Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan. Piltdown Man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. Nebraska Man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig. Java Man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found in a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered to be human and the skull cap from a large ape. Neanderthal Man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind. Australopithecus Afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skull and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human. Homo Erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than today's average human, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size falls within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo Sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting co-existence. Australopithecus Africanus and Peking Man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo Erectus. Homo Habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo Erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification."_ David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981: 289.55

Another example, problematic to the Theory of Evolution, is the existence of several human artefacts that have been found in various layers of rock and coal dated by Evolutionists to be millions if not billions of years old. These artefacts comprise tools, bowls, hand- and footprints and figurines crafted out of metals, such as iron and gold.

Followers of the Evolution Theory find it hard to admit that their theory is corrupt and would rather come up with a hypothesis that aliens must have visited the planet millions of years ago and left their artefacts behind. These artefacts have been found throughout the Geologic Column down to the Cambrian layer, which is said to contain the first visible signs of life that suddenly appeared on the scene with no obvious predecessors, billions of years ago.56

The current population on Earth also does not support an old Earth view, but rather that of one that is less than 10,000 years old. If modern-day humans have populated the Earth for more than 10,000 years the population would have been much larger calculated at the average growth rate. Considering the population growth rate over the past few millennia and extrapolating backwards, it is clear to see that the human population on Earth cannot be more than about 5,000 years old. If the Evolutionist were correct in their speculations that humans have been walking the Earth for many more millennia than the evidence supports, there should be more people on the Earth.

The Earth's magnetic field is scientifically proven to have decayed by about 10% over the last 150 years. If this decay is extrapolated back into history to about 10,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been too strong for life to be supported on the Earth's surface. The surface would have consisted of molten lava by the heat generated through the Earth's magnetic field.57

Spontaneous Generation of Life

The second pillar that crumbles under the Evolutionist view is that of life spontaneously generating out of a primordial rock soup. Although Darwin's Theory attempts to deal with the mechanisms for modification over time between different kinds of organisms, it fails dismally when addressing the origin of life on planet Earth. The idea that life spontaneously arose on Earth actually goes back to Anaximander, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 6th Century BC. He proposed that when mud was exposed to sunlight, life would arise as a result. Anaximander also maintained that the first life on Earth probably came from a "little pond" where organic salts were exposed to sunlight.58

This view was updated during the 1920's by scientists Oparin and Haldane. They suggested that a "hot dilute soup" of basic life was created when ultraviolet light from the sun interacted with the primitive atmosphere of water, ammonia and methane.59

In 1665, Robert Hooke was the first scientist to discover cells by looking at cork through a magnifying lens.60 At this point very little was available to assist in the analysis of the cell since scientists did not have the means to analyse in detail the structures of cells.

In 1670, Antony van Leeuwenhoek, made use of microscopes to view sperm cells, blood cells and protozoa.61 They were seen as the simplest building blocks from which living organisms were constructed, and without the ability to study the complexity of the "simple cell", scientists at the time incorrectly assumed these building blocks to be simple in their composition.

These hypotheses that life spontaneously originated have been moulded into what is today a cornerstone for the Evolution Theory. All of this of course occurred at a time where technology was limited and where evidence for establishing or testing the validity of the theory was lacking. Scientists were incapable of investigating, analysing and understanding the complexity of biology to confirm their notions. The majority of scientists and ordinary people accept the concept of life spontaneously generating on Earth as factual and true, without giving it much thought, although no scientific evidence can be produced to support this theory. In fact, the opposite has already been proven. Today the majority of the scientific community have placed spontaneous generation of life in the realm of total impossibility.

Scientists who refuse to abandon the theory of life spontaneously generating on Earth, because of their unwillingness to accept the alternative, are very uncomfortable when this topic is brought up. When facts show the flaws in this theory, scientists would respond with ridicule and/or aggravation instead of applying the scientific method. This unwillingness to consider alternatives is very evident in the words of George Wald, a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate who said:

" _One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."_ George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.62

Once new technology became available, providing more detailed information about the smallest cells and simplest life forms, even evolutionary scientists started looking at the odds of a living cell spontaneously forming from a chance interaction of life's building blocks. Once a better understanding of the complexity of the cell was obtained, the odds were shown to be truly astronomical. Harold Morowitz, the author of "Origin of Cellular Life" (1993) and a renowned physicist from Yale University declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation of life were one chance in 10100,000,000,000.63

In 1953, Francis Crick, who co-discovered the intricate structures contained in the DNA molecule, could not rationalise the implications of his discovery and subsequently devised a new hypothesis in 1970, in which he proposes that interstellar spores must have been responsible for life on Earth.64 Even if life came from interstellar space, it still does not explain the overwhelming impossibility of life spontaneously generating, no matter where it originated. Scientists from various disciplines also hold the view that having odds of less than one chance in 1050 or 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 \- is generally seen as completely impossible and unattainable in the lifetime that has been assigned to our Universe. Fourteen billion years is simply too short a time span to allow for any chance occurrence of probabilities of 1 in 1050. The chances for spontaneous generation, as shown by Prof. Morowitz, prove that the odds for Evolution to have come about through spontaneous generation, is actually contradictory to what is accepted as true science by mainstream scientists.

If we were to assume that life spontaneously generated here on Earth, we could also assume that a computer data storage device, such as a memory stick or thumb drive, which consists of some silicone based chips, a few other electronics, some packaging and an interface device, came together and assembled itself under some special circumstances from a rock soup. Most sane people would find such a suggestion ludicrous. What is even more astonishing is that when plugging this "accidental device" into a computer, by chance, it exactly matches the receptacle on the computer and can amazingly be read by the computer. Further, it even has an accidental operating system, which can automatically execute thousands of individual programs also stored on the same device.

If any person listened to someone telling this story today - suggesting that this memory device could spontaneously come together - they would immediately raise their hand and indicate that they would find it more plausible for it to have had a designer, a manufacturer and a computer programmer. Keeping in mind that it would also need to match the requirements of the computer on which it would be executed. Most people would find it absurd if someone believed and suggested that this device put itself together by chance, no matter what the circumstances were.

Similar processes, vastly more complex than an electronic memory stick containing information, are contained within a single cell. On top of the instructions, which are contained within DNA and which could be compared with a computer program, the cell also contains code for the construction of cellular machinery to build products according to the programs that are executed. Living matter consists of various complex amino acids. They come in different shapes and forms and perform specific functions; just as a flash memory stick or thumb drive would work to provide storage and the means of storing and communicating information.

Then, if we move a step further, we have DNA molecules which form the basis and foundation of all living organisms. This could be considered a biological operating system that executes programs stored within the DNA sequence, which is made up of a biological machine code. The code is in the form of amino acid pairs and instead of using binary code consisting of 1's and 0's as with a computer program, DNA uses a language consisting of 4 characters A,T,C and G.65

Not only does this biological machine code execute programs, but it also contains instructions on how to build molecular machines performing the execution of the DNA instructions and in turn build the products to allow cells to function as they do. The DNA code also contains information on how to extract, read and interpret the information in the code; to build new molecular machines that would perform certain essential functions, to replicate itself, repair damaged tissue, check and correct errors that may occur and also fend off attacks from invading organisms. Cells have power units that provide energy to the process. Cells can accept and utilise fuel and expel waste products. All processes and work performed are checked for accuracy and errors are corrected.

The DNA sequence acts as a genetic language to the cell and provides instructions on how it should construct cellular machinery and how to function. These instructions could be compared to Letters, Words, Sentences and Paragraphs that are conveying information to the cell with detailed instructions on how to behave. These processes are vastly more complex than anything humans have been able to build and yet, the only acceptable explanation for the existence of life on Earth that is offered by those who "know", is that of spontaneous generation. In my personal opinion this is an ignorant view to adopt, where what you believe to be true, is clearly absurd when compared to examples not as complex as the subject in view.

Since the mapping of the human genome in 2001, we now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. So why is it impossible to claim that DNA arose randomly? It is to assume that complex information can develop randomly? Even if it could be argued by scientists that the chemical building blocks, which form the DNA molecule, can be explained by natural material processes over millions of years, explaining the message that it conveys, is a completely different matter. Chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message itself.

To better explain this, please consider the following example: Suppose someone suggests that the program that is contained on a floppy disk is a result of the material that the floppy disk is made of; or that if a floppy disk is left unattended for millions of years, organised information would start to fill it spontaneously to create a complex computer program that anticipated the language which would be required by the machine it would be running on. From our experiences of how floppy disks function, we know that this statement is illogical. The magnetic material on which the information is stored, does not create the information, it only provides a means for capturing and storing the information that is to be conveyed.

Statistically, you may be able to alter the information contained on a storage device such as a floppy: If you moved a magnet over it in a specific way you may here and there find some sequential data bits, but certainly not to the extent that you would have no random data when you were finished and that all the information contained on the disk formed part of a program that would anticipate the environment in which it would have to be executed and function. The device on which information was stored would also be subject to external factors, which could work in on the information contained on the material storing the message. Over time the storage material would decay, long before any information would have the opportunity to spontaneously generate on it.

We know that a skilled programmer will have to:

Firstly understand the language of the computer, which he will be interfacing with, and then understand what the requirements of the program would be that he will be designing to perform certain tasks \- this is logical. Even leaving a floppy disk with an existing program on it (one that was loaded onto it) unattended for a few years, would cause the data stored on the disk to become corrupted and would render the program useless - all as a result of degradation of the material on which it is stored as well as the effects of the environment on the storage device. This happens over just a few years.

Secondly, it is logical to require a programmer to fully understand what he wants to accomplish through the program. There is no other way that has ever been observed in which one would be able to generate sensible and logically ordered information by chance. Nobody will go to a shop and buy empty data storage devices, expecting to find programs on them that happened purely by chance.

Thirdly, the information or program is transferred onto a floppy disk or memory stick, through a device that was specially designed to interact with the storage device once it is tested and compiled on a computer. This is the only logical way to get data onto a storage device. There is no other way to do it. Using a magnet to reorder the information on the floppy disk, will also not improve the quality of the program on the disk, but will cause damage and total deletion of the information stored on the floppy. Moreover, the information contained on a floppy disk or flash drive could be wiped and replaced with other information, which would then still make use of the same base material to transmit a new message.

Considering that decay in the material base of a floppy disk can affect the program that is stored on it, imagine how much more sensitive a biological storage device, such as DNA would be to decaying factors. There are various factors working on biological entities such as ultra-violet light, x-rays and oxidation, electro-magnetic fields, the need for fuel and processing equipment to utilise the fuel in order to keep the organism alive, which makes it a lot more susceptible to death and failure, removing any robustness which may have been available on a floppy disk.

" _It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man."_ Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Adler and Adler, 338.66

Irreducible Complexity

The Theory of Evolution also proposes that as Evolution occurred from out of the primordial rock soup; that organisms became more complex as they evolved. If we consider this critically we would also have to ask: "How is it possible that the very first bacteria, that formed by chance, simultaneously had the ability to process food and convert it into energy? How could they survive long enough to find a mate to reproduce, or to duplicate itself? How did they pass on to future generations newly discovered requirements on how to improve the species through the process of Evolution?" If the first bacteria missed out on any of these requirements and thousands of others that would also be required, it would have died, after an astonishing emergence against all odds, and that would have been the end.

Another question that Evolutionists have no answer for is: "How did organisms evolve through the evolutionary process to end up with males and females?" The reproductive organs become a fully functioning mechanism only when a male and female are united. Why would Evolution evolve a system that would be seen as following a path of most resistance that would require and depend on an external entity for reproduction? From an Evolutionary standpoint, co-dependency between males and females, which is found throughout nature, would be considered a weakness in formulating a solution to reproduction.67

How would you ensure the survival of an organism, if it required a similar organism of an opposite sex, to combine with and create an off-spring which combined half the DNA from one entity with half the DNA from the second entity?

A better solution, from an Evolutionary standpoint, would have been to evolve organisms that would not be dependent on external entities for reproduction, but which could self-replicate. In such an instance we would have had an Earth filled with life forms that procreated through continuous replication only. Furthermore, the reproductive organs of males and females in all species are perfectly suited to provide exact coupling to provide, as a result of the integration of complex genetic material, offspring. The reproductive organs are not the only mechanisms at work here. The cellular materials that are exchanged during coupling have just as many special properties without which, life would end. The gametes from males and females, as opposed to other cells, contain only half the information to make a complete new cell when male and female gametes are combined.

The female reproductive system is designed in such a way that it anticipates the growth of new life within it. Even with a zygote possessing only half of the mother's DNA, the body does not reject or attack this entity as an intruder, but nurtures it into a new-born infant while providing it with nutrition and oxygen from the mother. Considering the complexity involved not only at a functional level of sexual organs, but also in how cellular design is evident in ensuring that half of each parent is included in the new life, how does Evolution go about explaining this?

At what point would these organisms have evolved far enough to allow for reproduction to move from self-replication to procreation between male and female? If males and females did not exist right from the start, by what means would a species survive, if the reproductive organs have not yet fully evolved into functional devices? How does this evolution of reproductive organs ensure synchronised evolution of cellular material that is exchanged between males and females? How did organisms, which require opposite sexes for reproduction, survive before these mechanisms were in place?

If complete gender qualities are required for reproduction with all functions in place, how does evolution occur when extinction would result as a consequence of not having one of these aspects fully developed and in place? This leads to the question of how the Theory of Evolution proposes to deal with the complexity that exists in specific aspects of organisms, without which they would not be able to survive. This is known as Irreducible Complexity. Michael Behe, a biochemist coined the term for describing the design phenomenon inherent in molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella motor:

_"Irreducible Complexity" - "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."_ Michael J. Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Simon & Schuster, 1996: 39.68

As with the reproductive systems in mammals, the flagellar motor, as described by Michael Behe, consists of various parts working together, to provide the bacterium or cellular organism with an electrical propulsion system. It consists of various molecular parts that could be compared to a modern-day electrical motor connected to an element or propeller that provides forward motion when the motor turns. The motor itself consists of rings, stators and a rod that connects the motor to the tail which can be rotated at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. If any of these parts were not fully functional, the molecular motor would have no purpose and the entire system would be useless.

The sperm cell is an example of such a device that provides mobility to the cell to fulfil its purpose and to reach its destination. Evolution cannot explain how these functional machines came to be. How can a non-functioning system survive until all the parts have evolved to a point where they start working together and become useful? This is once again not logical and will lead to extinction.

Evolutionists argue that these motors may have evolved from other similar, but simpler, devices that are used to inject fluid into other cells.69 The problem with this is that the uses of the two devices are completely unrelated in the two cases that are considered. Assuming that an injecting mechanism evolved to become a propulsion system is almost the same as saying that a fuel injection system in your car evolved spontaneously over time into an outboard motor. These systems are completely different in composition and fulfil very specific and different functions. If any of the components did not work correctly from the start in either example, the organism would die and extinction would occur. If any part of the mechanism was missing or faulty, the organism would not be able to survive or perform its function and would die.

A great example to demonstrate irreducible complexity would be to apply it to the human body. If we look at the composition of the human eye we see the following:

The human eye is part of an extremely complicated system of about 40 individual and interrelated sub-systems.70 It consists of a variety of very particular devices and components that perform unique functions. Not only does the complexity of the eye astonish, but DNA provides genetic programming for delivering a dual functioning system, which allows not only for extremely high definition in sight, but also for the perception of depth by the organism.

The eye consists of an eyeball that is filled with a transparent fluid allowing light to travel through the cornea, the iris, the lens, the fluid in the eyeball and finally, to reach the retina at the back of the eyeball. Here the image is converted through chemical processes into electrical impulses. These impulses then travel to the brain via the optical nerve where it is interpreted by the visual cortex, providing the "picture" that we see in front of us.

Interestingly enough, all the devices that light have to travel through are composed of different kinds of cellular material. Each device has a very complex design, a unique function and, except for the iris, all are composed of completely transparent cells that allow light to travel through them all the way to the retina.

The cells in each device also have very distinct properties and perform different functions, but all are designed in such a way that light is permitted to pass through unhindered. The cornea, lubricated by the tear glands, helps to shield the rest of the eye from harmful matter such as germs, dust and foreign bodies. The cornea shares this protective task with the eyelids, the eye-socket, tears, the sclera (or white part of the eye) and eye lashes. The cornea can be viewed as the eye's outermost lens. It controls and focuses the entry of light into the eye as if through a transparent window. When light strikes the cornea, it bends or retracts the incoming light onto the lens. The lens further refocuses that light onto the retina in the back of the eye. The iris contracts or expands behind the cornea to limit or increase the amount of light that enters the eye, controlling the exposure to light that the retina receives. The retina consists of a layer of light-sensing cells lining the back of the eye that translates the image of light and colour through chemical and electrical processes into vision.

For you to see clearly, light rays must be focused by the cornea and lens to fall precisely onto the retina. There are various sets of muscles that provide motor function in moving the eyes simultaneously, so that the image projected onto the retina is an exact match in both eyes. These muscles also control the various distinct components to provide a focused image with just the right illumination.

The image, as it is projected onto the retina, is upside down in both eyes and also slightly curved - due to the spherical wall against which the image is projected. The projections in both eyes are interpreted in the visual cortex. In the processing of information that is received by the visual cortex, the images are reversed and spherical and chromatic aberrations in the images are removed by the brain, so that an upright image, without distortion, is viewed by the person or organism.

The retina has approximately 137 million light-sensitive cells that respond chemically to light. The chemical response is then converted into an electrical impulse from each cell and sent to the brain via the optic nerve. About 130 million of these cells in the retina look like rods and handle the black and white vision. The other seven million are cone-shaped and allow colour to be observed. In the brain the visual cortex interprets the electrical impulses that were generated through millions of chemical reactions on cellular level into colour, contrast, depth, shapes etc. This then allows for crystal-clear, undistorted upright "pictures", in full colour, in extremely high definition and immaculate resolution of our world to be viewed.

Incredibly, the eye and all its components, the optic nerve and the visual cortex, which is part of the brain, are totally separate and distinct sub-systems. Yet, together, they capture, deliver and translate more than 13.7 billion chemical reactions into electrical impulse messages every second! Moreover, the brain also provides an intricate control system that co-ordinates the entire process.

Every muscle contraction and expansion both on the eye muscles and that of the cornea, iris and lens is seamlessly interacting with various components to provide a crisply focused picture with just the right amount of exposure to light. It would be very difficult for us, even today, to obtain similar results and resolution using the most powerful computers available.

To compare the human eye's resolution, with which it can process visual information, to that of a High Definition Television Set: The eye has 137 million cells while a HDTV only has about 2 million light emitting diodes or LEDs. The human eye's resolution is therefore almost 69 times higher than that of, what we would consider modern hi-tech advances in visual entertainment.

How could Evolution, and the mechanisms it proposes, have evolved into entire integrated systems such as these, which would be useless if any part was not fully functional right from the start? How would the evolutionary process have guided organisms' development to incorporate the senses? In the evolution of an organism, how would an organism firstly identify a sense, that it did not have, and secondly know what information to pass on to its offspring, to evolve specific senses it did not know about in the first place? Looking at the eye, how would Evolution have guided the development of an eye in an initially blind creature, if the organism did not know that sight was a necessary sense? How would Evolution have guided all the intricate devices found in the eye to evolve separately, so as to finally form the complex interdependent closed system that provides immaculate vision with extremely high definition?

Proposing that the eye and the associated sub-systems, came about through a process of Evolution, is just as ridiculous as stating that all digital cameras, did not require a designer to have designed them. It would also be unnecessary to require an engineering team to work on all the separate devices found in the camera (to control the shutter speed, the exposure to light and the focusing through lenses) and neither did they need a factory to be built in. All cameras, although primitive at first, evolved from a pool of mud over millions of years, under just the right conditions.

The Evolution Theory would have you believe that it is scientifically more accurate to believe that cameras have always put themselves together by chance and have never required a designer to create that instrument you use to take pictures or videos with. If you ask any Evolutionist whether he believes that an ordinary camera required a designer to bring the object into existence, he would emphatically agree. However, if you ask the Evolutionist the same question about the human eye, which is far more complex than any camera that any human can construct (and also integrated to various other systems), each with their own specific function, he would emphatically argue that the eye happened by chance.

" _How did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities."_ Eastman and Missler, The Creator Beyond Time and Space: 80.71

Even Darwin himself noted how absurd it is to assume that the eye could have been a result of evolution:

" _To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."_ Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", or the "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (referred to simply as "Origin of Species"), Bantam Books, 1999 (reprint of 1859 original), 158.72

Even though Darwin admitted the absurdity of his own claims, he persisted with his Theory stating that earlier organisms had simpler eyes which gradually evolved into more complex forms. Today, this hypothesis has been refuted as well, since organisms like the Trilobite, considered by Evolutionists to be one of the earliest forms of life on earth - found in the Cambrian strata - had a complex eye with a dual lens system.35

Once the evidence has been considered objectively - note that these are just a few examples - one can easily see how in today's world, certain ideas are accepted as facts, without considering to apply the scientific method, or even basic common sense for that matter.

If in today's paradigm, provable facts are presented to the scientific community that go against the Theory of Evolution; they are laughed off, labelled as uneducated, or compared to believing in fairy tales. However, anyone who views the Theory of Evolution to be scientifically accurate, will have to consider how scientific accuracy is obtained: **If any fact is obtained that goes against any of the results that the hypothesis is expecting to achieve, the hypothesis is proven incorrect and the scientist will have to construct a new hypothesis**.

If the Theory of Evolution is proven to be questionable at best, by just looking at some of the evidence found today, would it be wise to accept it as 100% true and the only viable option, just because most other people do so ignorantly? Does the Theory of Evolution become more truthful because it is taught in schools as the only explanation for our existence? Why are facts that go against the Theory of Evolution omitted from literature and only those facts that seem to support it, included? These are some serious questions that one has to consider carefully. Many Evolutionists have expressed their own doubts about the validity of the Theory.

_"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."_ Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988: 19.73

_"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."_ \- Charles Darwin 1902 edition.72

_"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."_ Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971: 14.74

If Evolutionists question their own theories based on their own observations of refuting facts, what other options are there? Should one settle for a Theory that is visibly failing at various points and considered flawed by the person who came up with the initial hypothesis?

The only other option available is that which was held before the Theory of Evolution came to be. This would be that all biological life forms were created by Someone and that everything that we see today was designed and formed by an Intelligent Designer. This view is portrayed through the Biblical account in the book of Genesis, stating that everything was designed and created by God. According to the Bible, a global catastrophe in the form of a world-wide flood occurred that destroyed all living creatures on Earth, 1,656 years after the creation week. Only Noah and his family (in total 8 people) survived in the Ark with animals that were collected for preservation.

For Creationists it will be just as difficult to prove what they believe to be true. Both Evolutionists and Creationists have to compare the evidence that we have before us today, with a possible historic scenario. In both cases we have to deal with religious viewpoints, until one can find factual proof that would either confirm or contradict those viewpoints.

No Creationist or Evolutionist alive today, walked the Earth 5,000 years ago to provide solid evidence or have a picture of what the Earth looked like in support of their theory. The Creationist will rely on what is written in the Bible and also refer to supporting evidence from our world around us, demonstrating how the evidence supports the historic scenario as it is given in the Bible, while the Evolutionist will build on Darwin's ideas, which are already proven to be flawed. When information regarding Evolution is presented to the public, these errors will always be excluded or overlooked. The Evolutionist may even present the "fact" that Evolution is accepted as modern-day science by the majority of scientists, as the reason for their belief to be seen as factual, against knowledge that refutes the Evolution Theory.

We have already shown what science is and how the scientific method should be applied and that there are definite flaws in the way it is applied to the Theory of Evolution. The Evolution Theory has no scientific grounds, not even in the broadest sense.

The question to ask then: "Is the original hypothesis of life evolving on Earth correct? If there are flaws in our thinking about Evolution as a Theory, could we also be wrong about the eras that are supposedly represented by the Geologic Column?" If we are drawing conclusions from evidence before us that are clearly biased towards conforming to the ideas of life evolving over millions of years; rather than objectively considering facts and also taking into account the discrepancies that are encountered, should we not re-evaluate our position on our origins and find a more accurate model that would account for the facts before us?

If we compare the evidence before us today, with what is said to have occurred in the Creation model, finding a better match between the evidence and the historic accounts, would this not more clearly point out to us, the direction we need to follow to obtain the truth? Can we really believe that there is a God and that He created everything and can we somehow show proof of his existence?

How does science then apply to the view that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for everything we see today?

Many people would argue that the information contained in the Bible cannot be substantiated scientifically. Is this statement really true? From only a few aspects that we touched on earlier, we already know that there are many discrepancies and contradicting facts that would classify Evolution as non-scientific. Most scientists that hold to the Evolution view, would certainly reject this statement as an uneducated viewpoint, but not be able to provide explanations through scientific means to prove their case.

# Chapter 4: Does God Exist And Can We Prove It?

Having demonstrated some of the flaws in the Theory of Evolution and showing that it has no proper scientific foundations for its standpoints - considering facts that go directly against what the Evolution Theory proposes - the only other option available today would be that of Creationism. Creationism is said to be a religious belief, proposing the existence of humanity, life, the Earth and the Universe as the result of supernatural workings by a supreme being.1 Scientists believe that the information contained in historic documents such as the Bible and other biblical texts are non-scientific. They question the accuracy and validity of the information recorded in those texts. They consider any conclusions drawn from the information contained in the Bible, can only be classified as pseudo-science. In the 1,800's British geologists and other scientists argued that, from their observations, the world was considerably older than the 17th-century scripture-based calculation of less than 6 millennia. From this point forward, a distinct contrast developed between that which is considered "science" through the Theory of Evolution and that of the Bible, which is said to be a purely religious view. These contrasts have led people who believe in Creation, to come up with terms like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" which is labelled by mainstream science as "pseudo-science". Even within the creationist circles, there are many different viewpoints on how the account in the Bible should be interpreted. These are summarised below:

##### Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution asserts that the classical religious teachings about God's creative work are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material Universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply part of the natural processes within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply the tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis, regarding the relationship between religion and science - that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.

##### Progressive Creationism

Progressive creationism holds that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. , It accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the Earth's age, like Evolutionism, but posits that the new "kinds" of life forms, which have appeared successively over the planet's history, represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types, supernaturally. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution. They believe it to be biologically untenable as it is not supported by the fossil record; they also generally reject the concept of universal descent from a common ancestor.

##### Intelligent Design

Intelligent design best explains the proposition of specific aspects of the Universe and of living things. This opposes undirected processes such as natural selection, which is held by Evolutionists. It is a form of Creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument for the existence of God, but one, which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents - all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank - believe the Designer to be the God of Christianity.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American Creationists who revised their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of Creationism as science. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, but must be classified as pseudo-science.

##### Gap Creationism

Gap creationism (also known as "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism, that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days. They state that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the supposed age of the Earth, as held by Science today. It differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the "days" of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which, although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

##### Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth creationism is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life was created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews, who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. These adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting Evolution, Geological Uniformitarianism, or other theories which are contradictory to a literal interpretation of this creation myth, is misinterpreted.

Many Young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science; an endeavour which holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of Young Earth creation science organisations, such as the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis.

The established scientific consensus is that Young Earth creationism has no scientific basis. However, as we have demonstrated in the preceding chapters - there are many issues which make it incorrect to accept Evolution as factual.

How do you identify the one belief that is the most accurate, with all of these creationist views discounting spontaneous generation of life? How can we identify the truth, if we cannot unequivocally prove through normal experimentation and confirm that the timelines suggested by either Evolution or Creationism are factual? Is there any way in which the scientific method can be applied to this issue to establish with more clarity, which of these views are the most accurate? Where would we begin and what methods would we apply to test our hypotheses? I would like to propose a hypothesis that will assist us in better understanding the subject as we move forward; should we be able to provide some provable facts to support the hypothesis. Before I state the hypothesis, let us discuss this subject in a little more detail to provide a better understanding of my arguments in this respect. When it comes to carrying out experimentation with regards to the origin of the Universe, the Earth and that of life, we have to acknowledge three key factors before we continue. As human beings, we are physically limited in our ability to perform appropriate experimentation.

Firstly, there is time: As humans, we are bound to a fixed timeline and currently we cannot move back in time to collect accurate data from the point it occurred in history. We may be able to analyse artefacts, which originated in the past, but we are not able to correctly identify all factors that would have been in place at the time when a particular artefact originated. We may, for example, be able to analyse the composition of the atmosphere from an air bubble that was trapped in amber found today. We would only be able to obtain certain facts from the composition of the air that was trapped in that bubble and nothing else. There is no way to tell what the exact conditions on Earth were at that time or what external factors were in play - both crucial to be acknowledged during experimentation. It is also impossible for us to collect any evidence relating to aspects that will only occur in the future. Although the theories of general and special relativity suggest the possibility of travelling through time (which is often the theme of a variety of fictitious entertainment) there exist no devices or methods today, which would allow us to travel through time to collect data at specific points in time, outside of the present.2 Without this ability, we will never be able to validate any hypotheses to prove or disprove any aspect, which requires these measurements conclusively. The information or data we gather from the present only, will leave us with improvable philosophies as the only results, no matter from which perspective one considers a subject. An example of this dilemma would be to attempt collecting data that would prove unambiguously that the Earth had undergone major changes through a worldwide flood. You would also have to determine accurately what the meteorological conditions and strength of the magnetic field that existed before this time was, about 4,500 years ago. We are physically not capable to carry out experimentation or measurements that would assist us to obtain the evidence that we are after in this case. If we could travel 4,550 years back in time and stop at a point in time, a few years before the supposed worldwide flood occurred (as it is described in the Bible) and set up our equipment and collect relevant data, we would be able to conclusively settle any dispute around the matter. If time travel was possible, we may stumble upon information that nobody considered. We may even be able to answer other unrelated questions just because of our position in time and the benefit that it would provide to our observations e.g. "the sky was pink and not blue 4,550 years ago..." or "the Earth was much larger in size and the effect of gravity was different..." Since this ability will remain elusive for the foreseeable future, all we have to go on is evidence that we find around us in the present. These include geological properties and artefacts that we can observe, folk tales, which are in many cases considered myths only and the historical records that have been documented and preserved through the ages. However, the evidence that we do find, has to conform to processes that we understand today. For example, we know that fossils can only form if the object, that is fossilised, is encapsulated in an environment that would prevent decaying agents from reaching it. This is factual today and should also be factual for times in the past.

The second limiting factor is our locality. We are currently bound to planet Earth. Although we may have travelled to the Moon, our solar system's size, compared to the size of the Universe, does not provide us with any mentionable mobility with which we would be able to perform measurements, which could relate to the distances that we are dealing with. Where altering vantage points are required to carry out experimentation that would be necessary to confirm certain hypotheses, we are left with only half of the answer. A similar situation would be described if someone hypothesised that one was standing behind a one-way mirror, while others hypothesised that it was just ordinary glass. You are only allowed to observe it from the side that does not reflect light. The only way in which you would be able to confirm which of the two statements are true, would be to move to the other side to observe whether your image is being reflected or not. Without this positional shift and a second observation, any thoughts about the subject remain unsubstantiated and speculation only.

When we measure distances to nearby celestial objects in the universe, we make use of the distance of the Earth's orbit around the Sun to give us the base of a triangle, which is then used to calculate the difference in angle when the object is viewed, six months apart.3 For objects further than 100 light years apart, this method becomes obsolete and cosmologists then revert to measuring the properties of light emitted by stars and galaxies to determine the distances to these objects.4 If we wanted to perform an experiment that would prove that galaxies and other celestial objects in space are in general moving away from us, how would we go about doing this? The initial thought that led people to believe that objects are moving away from Earth (and that the Universe, as a result of this, is thought to be expanding), originated when they encountered the red-shift phenomenon when viewing the majority of stars and/or galaxies. We touched on this in previous chapters, but will now look at this phenomenon in a little more detail.

Astronomers observed certain aspects in the behaviour of light when looking at distant celestial objects. It seemed that the light waves that reached us were "stretched out" and that this resulted in a slower frequency of the light, also known as a "red-shift".5 Considering that the majority of the science community accepts that the speed of light has always had a constant value; the only explanation that would fit this phenomenon, would be to assume that objects are in fact, moving away from us and that the red-shift, is caused by the resulting Doppler Effect.6 So far it sounds like a good argument and quite plausible, but looking at some of the issues involved critically, some questions go unanswered. These questions have a considerable impact on the conclusions that are drawn. One question to ask would be: Has the light that is observed, moved at constant speed from the object since it originated until the time we observed it, over hundreds if not thousands of light years? Could there have been any other influences that may have affected the light, while it was travelling from the object to our eyes and instruments? We know that gravity plays a role in the speed of light and that light cannot escape black holes. So, if the speed of light can be varied, can we conclude with absolute certainty that the beam of light we observe has not been affected by any gravitational influence? How has the second law of Thermodynamics affected the speed of light over time?7 Since we cannot accurately measure the change today, due to a lack of time, is it safe to assume that the speed of light has always been constant?

The same argument would apply for a case in which you had an elastic measuring tape and wanted to measure the distance between two objects. If you measured the distance, not knowing that the measuring tape was elastic, or that a force was applied to the tape while you are measuring, you would get an incorrect answer. In the red-shift example, if we had freedom of movement in the Universe, it would have contributed immensely to the resolution of our measurements and assisted us in obtaining more certainty from the conclusions that scientists are drawing. If we were able to move around at will through the Universe, and perform additional observations, this would then have allowed us to go to the opposite side of an observed galaxy, at the same distance as it is viewed from the Earth, measure and record the properties of the light which this galaxy emits, and compare the new results with the results as measured from Earth. If the measurements show a shift into the blue from the new vantage point, we know with certainty that the galaxy is in fact moving away from Earth and towards the new vantage point. If the results show a shift of the light into the red, similar to observations from the Earth, we would know that our initial interpretation would be wrong; since the galaxy, cannot at the same time be moving away from Earth and also moving toward the Earth. From obtaining these measurements, we would know that the galaxy is probably not moving away from Earth, but that the speed of light is more likely to be slowing down. Our physical limitation does not currently allow us to perform the second measurement and is the only measurements that we can perform from our position on Earth. The interpretation of the data we have is now open to philosophical arguments and nobody is able to prove, with absolute certainty, that it is either right or wrong. While we lack the ability to measure or observe certain aspects of the Universe, the only conclusion we can reach with certainty, is that we do not have the physical capability to collect sufficient information to reach any concrete conclusion. This fact is absolutely certain and will remain true, until we can escape our dimensional limitations.

Thirdly, we have to deal with preconceptions. In many people's minds certain subjects are "accepted facts" and they close the door on any further investigation when there are clearly aspects which require further study to properly explain obvious discrepancies. As an example, the majority of scientists today believe that the speed of light is constant and has always been constant. All that we know about science is built upon this assumption. This view will mould and govern the way in which the world around a scientist is observed. Because most scientists believe that the speed of light has always been constant and therefore, as a result, also believe that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. This being the only way in which one could explain how light, that was emitted by celestial objects, millions of light years away, could reach us. This has even been published in a joint statement of the Inter-Academy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 92 national and international science academies. They list, as an established scientific fact, that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.8 If one accepts that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, it makes it easier to accept that the Geologic Column is an historic record of past ages; even though there are various aspects found within the "Column" that go against the idea of it being formed gradually or being millions of years old. There are no transitional life forms recorded anywhere in the fossil record and proponents of Evolution have admitted this. There is evidence found in the fossil record (including the fossilisation process itself) that does not match a gradual deposition of material to allow for the preservation of biological forms in vast quantities all over the globe. Yet, most scientists will try to skirt around the issues and keep their minds set on "what must be true - according to our science and our philosophy".

As you can probably see, the three aspects mentioned above are major contributors to the adoption of biased viewpoints on any subject. My idea is not to bash people over the head with my own views or ideas about specific subjects or try to force a specific doctrine down people's throats. My goal is to have people think about issues logically; to critically consider issues and evaluate all the aspects around these subjects; to ask yourself whether the evidence before you matches the "facts" and the "theories" that science, society and the powers that be are forcing upon us as the absolute truth.

If we keep these three limitations in view: Bound to our locality, dimensionality and preconceptions; how do we then go about to formulate a hypothesis, carry out experimentation and draw conclusions, which would eliminate the possibility of ending up with an ambiguous philosophical argument, which can be proven neither true nor false? In my opinion, you need to first identify a subject you could approach using the scientific method - free of all these limiting factors - and approach it with an open mind, rejecting all preconceptions that you may have about it.

My questions then are these:

**A:** \-- If God supposedly created the Universe, the Earth, life on Earth and us as humans - the crown of his Creation - and the Bible is said to be the Word of God, should we then not be able to find supporting scientific evidence that would prove to us that the Bible was supernaturally compiled and that it has qualities that no other book on Earth has?

**B:** \-- If we were created by God and He wanted people to know that his Word is true and the information contained therein reliable, would he not then authenticate his Word in some way or form? When you examine a dollar bill or money in any other currency – you will normally find things like watermarks, metallic strips and various other authentication devices that would tell you that the money that you are holding in your hand is the real thing and not a fake. Can we find similar aspects hidden in the Word of God?

**C:** \-- If God is outside of time and he provided a life-manual for one generation, how would he ensure that the manual stays unaltered for all other generations to follow and would this be an aspect that is evident within the Bible?

**D:** \-- If the Bible was truly God's Word, would it not possess qualities that no other book on Earth possessed?

**E:** \-- If we studied the Bible scientifically, looking at the way it was put together and the information it contains, would we find any evidence that would convince us that the Bible was truly given to us from a supernatural source, from outside the dimensionality of time and space that we are bound to?

**F:** \-- Would we be able to recreate something similar from a human situational viewpoint?

My hypothesis is this: Knowing that the Evolution Theory does not correspond to the evidence that is found, and that Darwin and others realised that his Theory was flawed and even expressed the reasons for their doubts, we need to investigate the alternative. Can we scientifically prove that the Bible possesses qualities that would confirm that it had its origin from outside our dimensionality of space-time? Is there evidence of supernatural design contained within? Can we prove that no other book exhibits the qualities that are found in the Bible? Should we be able to do this, it naturally follows that an Intelligent Being, who is not limited to our physical constraints, guided its design and construction over approximately 1,600 years, employing about 40 different authors. Proving the validity of the information contained in the book, which relates to our physical world in the present day, as well as to historic events and other aspects, which can be analysed conclusively; we will have a solid foundation from where we can also relate to the information relating to situations, which we cannot validate. In short then: Showing evidence of the Bible's supernatural design, the proven accuracy of the many facts within our means to accurately analyse, then we should also be able to rely on the information for which we have no verifiable answer.

If we are considering the Bible to be a book that was inspired by God, what would we expect to see in it that proves to us that this document actually did originate from outside our realm of time-space? Would it be possible to compare the complexity of design in the Bible to that which is found within DNA? Can we prove that the Person who designed it, did it with immaculate precision; even though many people, from diverse backgrounds who in most cases, did not even live in the same time period, were involved? Can we prove that the Bible in its entirety was not the work of men, but that people were used in its construction and that these men were inspired to write the words and sentences that they did?

If we have a situation where we are dealing with something not bound to specific dimensionalities or to time and that was designed by a supernatural Designer outside of our frame of reference, what are the properties that we would expect to find in such a creation?

Firstly, in my opinion, one would expect to find that whatever evidence we are looking at, would be timeless. How else would a Designer, outside of time, ensure that all people, living in a time-bound environment \- having limited life-spans and being alive at different periods in time - get exactly the same relevant message? Furthermore, if this is a supernatural document, outside of our space-time domain, you would expect to find evidence of pre-existent knowledge contained within - information about future events still to occur. It should also be relevant and timeless. Finally, predictions of events should be accurate in all instances. You should be able to find hundreds of references to events that were predicted in the Bible that actually occurred; just as it was predicted.

In my studies I have come to realise that the Bible possesses qualities that no other book has. Sadly, most people are not aware of this and see the Bible as just another religious or historic book, with do's and don'ts. But it is actually far more than this. More about this later...

So how do you go about analysing the Bible? Can we find evidence contained in the pages that would prove to us that this document is from outside our dimensionality and that a Supernatural Designer was responsible for putting it together? We will start off by first looking at the history of the Bible and how it came to be.

# Chapter 5: The Bible – A Hyper-dimensional Document

The Christian Bible, as we know it today, was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It contains 66 books written over a period of about 1,600 years and had at least 40 authors. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and also contains some books that had sections written in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek and although the New Testament is rejected by the Jewish faith, it forms the crux of Christian belief.1 Most Christians believe that both the Old and New Testaments were verbally inspired by God. Some Jews, after studying specific aspects in the Old Testament, have also come to accept the New Testament as being supernaturally inspired, based on similarities that are found in the design of both these texts.

The Old Testament of the Christian Bible is similar to the Jewish Bible (Tanakh) except that the order of the books differs. You may wonder why I am specifically referring to the Christian Bible here and not just the Jewish Tanakh (which excludes the Christian New Testament), or the Roman Catholic Bible (which has additional books as part of the canonical structure) or any other version of the Bible. The reasons for this will become evident as we progress.

The Christian Bible today consists of the 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. It was written between 1,500 BC and 90 AD.2 When considering the structure of the Tanakh in its original Hebrew form, it is divided into three parts: It starts off with the "Pentateuch" or Torah. These first five books are known as the "teaching" or the "law". It comprises of the creation of heaven and Earth, the Flood and the origins of the Israelite nation and God's covenant with them. It is traditionally believed that the Torah was given to Moses letter-by-letter during the wanderings of the nation Israel in the Sinai Desert. Many scholars today dispute this fact and speculate that the Torah was written by various different people and that it could not have been written by Moses alone. One of the reasons for this is that Deuteronomy contains information of Moses' death. The next section is the Nevi'i or "prophets" containing the historic account of ancient Israel and Judah and the works of prophecy that are today known in the Christian Bible as the Major and Minor prophets. The last section in the Jewish Bible is the Ketuvim or "writings" and contains the poetic and philosophical works such as Psalms, Proverbs and Songs of Solomon. These three sections also make up the Old Testament in the Christian Bible and the first 3 letters of these sections as given above (T,N,K) make up the Jewish word Tanakh.

Authors of the books contained in the Tanakh include kings, shepherds, prophets and various leaders of the people, whose writings were captured on leather scrolls and tablets over centuries. Around 450 BC, the three sets of writings, forming part of the Jewish Scriptures, were arranged by councils of rabbis (Jewish teachers), who then recognised the complete set as the inspired and sacred authority of God (Elohim).

Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, started as early as 250 BC with the translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. This translation became known as the "Septuagint", referring to the team of 70 or more scholars who were involved in the translation project. It was also during this process that the book order was altered to the order we have in the Bible today: Historical (Genesis - Esther), poetic (Job - Song of Songs), and prophetic (Isaiah – Malachi).

The first question people normally ask when encountering manuscripts that are copied is: "How accurate are the copies when compared to the originals?" or "How well were these manuscripts preserved through the ages since the days of Moses?" Although these manuscripts were copied by hand, until the invention of the printing press in the 1,400's AD, the Jewish scribes had an intricate and ritualistic system by which this was done. This ensured that each copy of a manuscript was letter-for-letter an exact match of that of the original. These rituals included counting of letters, words and paragraphs to avoid any errors from slipping in and even washing their hands every time they encountered a situation where they needed to write down the unpronounceable name of God. Should a mistake have been made during the copying process, the entire scroll or tablet would have been destroyed and the scribe would have to start afresh.3 Jewish scribes responsible for the preservation of the holy books would dedicate their entire lives to this process.4 The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in the Qumran caves between 1947 and 1956, confirmed the accuracy that was maintained over centuries. These manuscripts, comprising around 900 Biblical and extra-Biblical documents, were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and are estimated to have originated around the period of 150 BC to 70 AD. When a modern-day manuscript is compared to one found in the Qumran collection, the remarkable reliability and accuracy with which the scribes copied the documents, is evident and the teachings contained in these documents, is found to be identical, with some stylistic variances and slight variances on spelling here and there.5 However, for our purposes we will consider the Masoretic text, which is used today by both Jews and Christians for our analysis as this is the official text used by both faiths that underwent the stringent copying process.

What about the New Testament? A period of around 400 years passed from when the last book of the Old Testament was written, until the time that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The accounts of his life on Earth were captured in the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each of these documents has a defined and unique approach in the way Jesus is presented and each also makes use of a different genealogy to provide a matching ancestry for the viewpoint taken in each Gospel.

These four documents are followed by Acts, written by Luke, concerning the formation of the Christian Church; followed by the Epistles, most of them written by Paul, but also including other apostles, such as James, John, Jude and Peter. Finally, we have Revelation, which is a document stating that the content was given to John on the island Patmos, by Jesus Christ himself. The entire New Testament was written over a period of about 50 years, from 40 AD to 90 AD.6 The four Gospels were eye-witness accounts of the life of Jesus and the events that unfolded around him up to his crucifixion, resurrection from death and ascension into heaven. The authors of the New Testament quote from 31 books in the Old Testament and the writings were circulated so widely that the complete set of both Old and New Testament writings became known as the "New Covenant".

Translations into Latin, Coptic and Syriac were performed during the 200's AD and these were spread throughout the world as "Inspired Scripture".7 The final canonical structure of the 27 books of the New Testament, as we have them today, were put in place in 397 AD by the "Synod of Carthage" in an effort to protect the New Testament writings from various heresies and false religions.

In our quest to evaluate the Bible as we know it today, according to the scientific method to see what conclusions we can draw, we will firstly start with the New Testament and see what it offers in respect of design. By applying the scientific method in the evaluation of the Bible, we would like to obtain answers to the following questions:

Can we prove the following scientifically:

**A:** \-- That evidence of supernatural design is found in abundance throughout the collection of books contained in the Bible?

**B:** \-- That prophecies, or predictions, which are made in the Bible regarding events that have already occurred in history - but after the Bible was written - can be verified as 100% accurate and truthful from historic records?

**C:** \-- That the Bible is unique and that no other book on Earth possesses similar qualities?

**D:** \-- That some authentication mark and evidence of design was put in the Bible, through its entirety, by God to authenticate it as His Word?

If the answers to all these questions are "yes": then we can conclude, without any doubt, that the information contained in the Bible is not just some mythical convolution of ideas conjured up by weird and fanatical people from the past and put together in a collection over many centuries. We can also say that Someone from outside the limits of time and space, who knew the end from the beginning, guided the way in which this book was compiled over 16 centuries. Furthermore that the scriptures in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek were truly supernaturally inspired, letter-for-letter, although penned by more than 40 different people. The implications that this holds for us, is that absolute truth is contained within the pages of such an artefact. This information can then be considered timeless and will be as valid today as it was in 1,500 B.C. Our views, influenced by various social philosophies, doctrines and beliefs over millennia and even by the media, may need to be measured against the information about these subjects contained within the Bible. Only then can we determine whether our viewpoints conform to the truth. This will however only be possible if we can prove without any doubt, that the Bible contains supernatural qualities. In addition to this, if we know that the Bible is a document that was constructed by someone who is not bound by the same limitations that we as humans are bound by, what should we make of the information that it conveys? Can we trust it? Should we stop and listen to what it is saying? How should we treat the information when we have provable evidence that it was put together by someone, who is not only outside of our time and dimensional space, but who claims to be responsible for creating the environment in which we live? We will firstly set out to identify aspects in the Bible, relating to the presence of design and also consider aspects of design at different levels.

With Relativism influencing people's thinking today, especially when considering subjects like spirituality and faith, as we have discussed earlier, it would be good to firstly reset our own thinking: For this, I would ask you to take a totally objective stance and bury all preconceptions that you may have about this subject. We need to ensure that we have a fundamental understanding of what "design" is and how we recognise the presence of "design" in a subject we are evaluating and that we can, as a result, consider the subject objectively before we continue. On TV channels (such as National Geographic, Animal Planet or one of the Discovery channels) we often hear about the evolution of specific animals in reference to aspects of design that are evident in the creatures being discussed. This is actually an oxymoron - to believe in Evolution and to then talk about design - since design would imply that there was a "designer" involved. In most cases, they would refer to Nature as the designer. Would that not be the same as saying that a big industrial fuel plant was the designer of the large compressors, operating within it, and that over time the compressors adapted to the environment to become perfectly part of the plant and to provide compressed air to specific units within the plant? It is absurd and makes no sense. It is further just as important to recognise the absence of "design" when dealing with a subject where chaos or randomness is prevalent. By using the word "design", when referring to aspects within a living organism, let us quickly see what is implied. Can one then have design without a designer? The English Dictionary describes "design" in the following ways:

" **Design" as a verb (used with object):**

**1.** \-- To plan and fashion artistically or skilfully.

**2.** \-- To intend for a definite purpose.

**3.** \-- To assign in thought or intention; purpose

**4.** \-- To plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

" **Design" as a noun:**

**1.** \-- Organisation or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.8

On the other hand, if we look at concepts such as "chaos" or "disorder", we have the opposite of "design" with the following definition:

" **Chaos" as noun:**

**1.** \-- A state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organisation or order.

**2.** \-- Any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.9

If Evolutionists then make use of the word "Design", when referring to specific aspects in organisms that supposedly came about by chance, they in fact acknowledge that a designer, having in mind the skilful execution of a plan to put together a work of art with a specific purpose, was behind the subject that they are discussing. Yet, Evolutionists will not acknowledge the fact that a designer is required for generating a design and would argue that this process can occur spontaneously, by chance, if allowed enough time. We know today, using sophisticated instrumentation and advanced technology that the field of biology is much more complicated than people anticipated in the 1,800's. We know now that the structure of DNA and processes in a single cell are extremely complicated and that it cannot be ascribed to mere chance, even if the Universe was 100 times older than scientists postulate.

If the Bible is said to be God's Word and claims that God created and maintains all substance, surely he would then also provide evidence of "design", in the compilation of the Bible as an integrated object. We would also expect these "design" qualities and properties to be distinctly identifiable and outside of human capability to reproduce.

Let us therefore consider the Bible and see what it offers in respect of design. If we look at the complexity of DNA and the intricacies of a single cell, can we find similar qualities that are as complex, within the Bible?

From the definitions above, we will firstly consider the structure of the text, in the original languages in which the Bible was written, specifically looking at three main areas in the Bible. From this we will then begin to draw some conclusions on deciding whether the Bible can be considered a candidate for supernatural design. If we can demonstrate that the aspects mentioned below are in fact true, we will have a good foundation for further investigation and for moving on to other points. If the Bible then is considered to be inspired by God and manifests similar complexities to that which is found in our own fabric, we should be able to identify the following:

**A:** \-- We should find unambiguous evidence for supernaturally inspired structure in the text, as it was put together over more than 16 centuries, even though more than 40 people took part in writing it.

**B:** \-- We should also be able to identify recognisable patterns evident in the Bible, at different levels:

**C:** \-- Firstly, in the methodology of structuring the text and analysing any numeric or chronologic structures that may exist in the original text.

**D:** \-- Secondly, any patterns or models, used throughout the Bible and their correlation to fulfilment in actual events that they pointed to, should be consistent.

**E:** \-- Thirdly, when considering the Bible as an integrated unit or message system, evidence of integrated "design" should also be evident throughout the scripture as a whole, if we are to accept the Bible as the Truth. What I mean by this is that if specific attributes of design are noted in a specific section of the Bible, the same should be true for other sections. There should also be some evidence of the various books being linked together through some intricate system that we can observe and test.

**F:** \-- The Bible, as a supernatural document, should be self-interpreting. If it was designed outside of time and space, it should be able to anticipate questions that would be asked in the future (well after it was written) and also provide answers from within the same document.

If the Bible is to be seen as a document that can be trusted, it should contain prophecies. We should look out for prophecies, that were predicted and then fulfilled with 100% accuracy, by verifying events from history.

Would one be able to find any of these qualities in the Bible? To give some logical structure to the way in which we approach this, the best starting point would be to work from the bottom up. If we can identify the specific and recognisable structure in the composition of the original texts, look at the complexity thereof and then compare it with other possible candidates to see if we have similar results, we will have a good foundation to continue our investigation. Without a proper foundation to work from, we may as well be on a wild goose chase and would do better looking for options elsewhere.

##### Structural Design of the Biblical Text:

Research into the structure of the Bible dates back to at least the 12th century, when rabbinical scholars first wrote about their discoveries of meaningful words, hidden in the Hebrew text of the Torah.10 At that point in history, technology was primitive at best and to perform a comprehensive and detailed analysis on the structure of the Bible, would have taken years.

One of history's greatest scientists and mathematicians, Sir Isaac Newton, devoted more of his time in the late 1600s and early 1700s to the study of the Bible, than to that of science. Newton's greatest passion was the Bible and he spent a great deal of time delving deeper into it and trying to discover messages that were hidden within. He said: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." He was also fascinated with the apocalypse and believed that the Bible contained histories of future events yet to occur. (These were portrayed in the Bible as metaphors and symbolism that demanded exacting skills of interpretation). Newton was enthusiastic about this challenge and embarked on a journey, which would last for 55 years until his death in 1727.11 As knowledge increased and techniques were improved over the years, the information that could be gleaned from the Scriptures also increased.

In 1890 Dr. Ivan Panin, a Russian-born emigrant to the United States, claimed to have discovered numerical patterns in the Hebrew texts of Psalms, as well as in the Greek text of the New Testament.12 Until his death in 1942, he devoted his life to the painstaking exploration of numerical structures in the Bible and generated more than 40,000 hand-penned pages of his analyses. Panin's studies were triggered in 1890, when he started to read from the Gospel of John, using the Koine Greek version of the Bible.

The first verse in John reads as follows when translated directly to English: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with _'the'_ God, and the Word was God." As he considered this sentence, he was intrigued by the fact that the definite article "the" preceded the first mention of "God" in the verse, but not the second. Why would there be a difference? To analyse this apparent discrepancy, he made a list in which he collected all verses from the New Testament in which the word "God" occurred with the article "the" and all those without it. When the two lists were compared, he noted that there was a remarkable mathematical relationship. He repeated this exercise for the word "Christ" and followed this with several other words. He noted that in each case there was an amazing numeric relationship hidden in the structure of the text. This apparent discrepancy in the first verse of the Gospel of John would later provide scientific proof of the numerical structure underlining the entire text of the scripture. Panin discovered that these anomalies were not just there by chance, but that they were actually required for perfecting the underlying structural design of the text, which became evident as his studies continued. During the next 50 years, Panin would devote up to 18 hours a day painstakingly counting letters, numbers, sentences and syllables and performing calculations to mathematical problems and then recording his findings in hand-written notes. He was so devoted to this task that his health frequently suffered as a result. He did not receive any compensation for his work and even though he was offered a prestigious post as President of a College, he turned it down and continued in his labour of love, trusting that God would provide for him.13

In order to gain a full understanding of the dedication and involvement that Panin's work required, we must realise that he started off with only the bare essentials. Before his discovery no previous studies had been performed in this field and he was about to embark on some ground-breaking work, without the tools and technology that we have available today. This enormous task also required mathematical precision of a level never before encountered. His work also depended on reference works, which for all intents and purposes, were non-existent then! He had to first compile a set of tools for himself with which he could attack the task at hand and only when these were completed, could he start with his analyses. The extreme difficulty that dr. James Strong encountered while compiling his "Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" (where each and every word of consequence in the entire Bible was carefully noted, recorded, numbered, collated and corresponding Hebrew and Greek definitions were provided) was dwarfed by the tasks that Panin had to perform in his studies.

Before he could start, he had to compile his own unique concordance. Not only did Panin have to focus on the words of the original Greek texts, but also on their arrangements, positions, numeric values, the syllables they contained and the letters that they consisted of. These had to be arranged into a logical and ordered system which served as a concordance. This was not just any concordance. In it, he would record the intricacies of each letter, its position and its value in great detail. Both the Hebrew and Greek cultures made use of a numbering system that was incorporated in their alphabet. There was no separate numbering system, as we have in ours today - in Hebrew and Greek each letter would also represent an associated number.

Not only did Panin require a very detailed concordance, but he also had to compile accurate vocabularies to address the required detail in the text. The first concordance that Panin produced was around 1,000 pages and listed every one of the occurrences of the 137,903 New Testament Greek words. The words are listed in alphabetical order and every reference to chapter and verse is neatly written beneath each word in his hand-written notes. At the time, there were no reliable Greek concordances available to the standard that Panin required and so it was necessary to create these from scratch. The second product that resulted from this exercise was a second 2,000-page concordance, which listed the various forms of the Greek words used. This took six years to compile, was tedious and time-consuming, but provided Panin with the tools with which an in-depth analysis could be performed. The next project that took another two years was that of compiling a reference containing the entire vocabulary of the New Testament. Each word had 16 attributes that were described, each in its own column next to the word. These would include order number, numeric value, place value, number of occurrences, syllables, letters, writers, books, number of forms etc. During this time, Panin never received a salary and any assistance he got, was from volunteers.14

Let us look at some of the examples from Panin's findings:

##### Staggering Precision in Structural Design:

If we consider the first chapter in Matthew, the first Book of the New Testament, we find the first 17 verses of this book deal with a single principle subject: The genealogy of Jesus Christ from a Jewish perspective - starting with Abraham. Below is the English translation from the Greek and it reads as follows:

Mat 1:1 -17 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

At first glance, in English, this would seem to be just an ordinary genealogy, something that is often found in the Bible. Few people would entertain any thoughts about the structure of the text whilst reading through it and often a reader would just skip over it, since it could be tedious to read through a lengthy genealogy that does not provide any meaningful information.

It is however, incredible when realising how precisely this passage was put together, when you delve to deeper levels of analysis in the Greek. Not only is there staggering evidence of design in this passage, but it seems that even the names were designed and somehow inspired to be given at the time of their births. The names also had to be in a specific order, so that this passage, as it was written in Greek sometime after 30 AD, would conform to an underlying design. It also seems as if the knowledge of the structure of this passage was known to the author in a dimension outside of time, since the names given to the children when they were born, would have had to be inspired, to meet the requirements of the design that is found in the text at the time it was penned. Further to this, the designer had to anticipate the languages that would emerge, as well as the numbering system that would be associated with the letters of the alphabet that would be used. How could the parents have known that their genealogies would someday be recorded in a book that would have a very specific design to it? All of this - the specific names; the attributes of each name i.e. length of the name in letters; number of vowels; number of consonants and many other properties used in this genealogy that stretches from Abraham all the way to Jesus Christ; the language and numbering system that would be employed - would finally fit like small pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, that would only reveal a masterly constructed design, once the final piece was fitted.

To provide more detail and insight into the attributes hidden in this passage: Imagine you were asked by a client to write a work of literature in such a way that it would meet very specific requirements and conform to his detailed design specifications. If you were required to write a paragraph consisting of letters, syllables, words and sentences and were requested to make use of a number of words that are evenly divisible by 7, most people would not see this as an issue and would agree that this can easily be achieved. On top of this however, you also have to make use of words for which vowels and consonants, respectively could be evenly divided by 7. This adds a level of difficulty that would take some time to achieve, but it is do-able. You are also asked to ensure that the number of nouns you use, are evenly divisible by 7; the number of words that appear in more than one form should be exactly 7; words starting with either a vowel or a consonant should be divisible by 7. At this point most people would begin to think that these requirements are just too complex to achieve realistically, while you also have to keep the information meaningful at the same time. This is only a small part of the complexity that is contained within this piece of scripture. Below is a list of attributes that are associated with this passage, which contains 72 words in the Greek vocabulary, as found by Ivan Panin:

**1.** \-- The number of words that are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8.

**2.** \-- The Greek word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: Exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8.

**3.** \-- Also, the number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs, is exactly 7.

**4.** \-- There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek words used, is 49, or 7 x 7.

**5.** \-- Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4.

**6.** \-- The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.

**7.** \-- The total number of letters in these 49 words is exactly 266, or 7 x 38.

**8.** \-- The number of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20.

**9.** \-- The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18.

**10.** \-- Of these 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5.

**11.** \-- The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x2.

**12.** \-- The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6.

**13.** \-- The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.

**14.** \-- The number of 49 Greek words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6.

**15.** \-- The number of words that are not nouns is 7.

**16.** \-- Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or 7 x 5.

**17.** \-- These 35 nouns are used 63 times, or 7 x 9.

**18.** \-- The number of male names is 28, or 7 x 4.

**19.** \-- These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8.

**20.** \-- The number of non-male names is 7.

**21.** \-- Three women are mentioned - Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, or 7 x 2.

**22.** \-- The number of compound nouns is 7.

**23.** \-- The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.

**24.** \-- Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters.

**25.** \-- The 72 Greek words add up to a gametrical value of 42,364, or 7 x 6,052 from the Greek letters.

**26.** \-- The 72 words appear in 90 forms, some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54,075, or 7 x 7,725.15

Each result that is obtained is divisible by 7 exactly. It becomes immediately obvious that this underlying structure in the numerical qualities of the passage, when compared to the definitions of "design" and of "chaos", would have to fall under that of being designed. There is a notable and a comprehensible structure, patterns that are repeated and the number 7 is found as the foundation for construction of the text. What makes this phenomenon even more mind-boggling is the fact that we are working here with a genealogy – people's names. This limits the flexibility one would have in fitting words into the passage that would suit the requirements as mentioned above. Furthermore the information contained in the passage also spans multiple centuries in which each person's given name fits perfectly into this design. People's names are what they are and can normally not be written in different forms or be adjusted to fit design requirements. Another dilemma would be: Putting something like this together also would require pre-existent knowledge of various aspects long before they actually occurred. These include the design constraints that have to be met once the information is penned; the language and its properties that will be used when it is captured, including numerical associations with characters of the alphabet that will be used. From a human point of view, it would be necessary to somehow guide the parents over centuries, without failing once, in how to name their children, so that they would eventually form part of the genealogy, according to specific design criteria. The only logical way in which one would be able to accomplish something as elaborate as this, would be to enjoy total freedom from our dimensionality - to exist outside of time altogether and be able to influence every person in such a way that they would be swayed to carry out the requirements for the design.

It is not just coincidence that a passage would have unintentional structured and patterned properties. If we now turn our attention to the Old Testament, where we have a different language (Hebrew) would we see similar design qualities evident in the text? Considering just the first verse of Genesis for a similar analysis, we find the following: Genesis 1:1 reads as follows: _"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth."_

In English, once again, nothing special seems to jump out. If one considers the same verse in the original Hebrew however, the sentence contains 7 words that are made up of 28 letters. We also find the following interesting features that are hidden in the structure of the text:

**1.** \-- The 7 words have exactly 28 letters (4 x 7).

**2.** \-- There are 3 nouns (God, heaven, and earth) with a gamatria of exactly 777 or (111 x 7).

**3.** \-- There is one verb ("created") with a numeric value of 203 (29 x 7).

**4.** \-- The first 3 words contain the subject and have exactly 14 letters (2 x 7); the other four contain the object and also have exactly 14 letters.

**5.** \-- The Hebrew words for the two objects (heaven and earth) each have exactly 7 letters; the value of the first, middle and last letters in the sentence is 133 (19 x 7).

**6.** \-- The numeric value of the first and last words in the sentence is 1,393 (199 x 7).

**7.** \-- The value of the first and last letters of the verse is 497 (71 x 7).

**8.** \-- The value of the first and the last letters of each word in between is 896 (128 x 7).

**9.** \-- The Hebrew particle "eth" is used with the article "the" twice; its total value is 406 (58 x 7).

**10.** \-- The last letters of the first and last words are valued at 490 (70 x 7).

**11.** \-- The 4th, 5th, and 6th words have 7 letters each...and so it goes on!

Panin found more than 30 different numeric features in this one verse alone, showing the number 7 once again forming the foundation of the design that is used in just this one sentence. This phenomenon is found throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament.

Many sceptics will argue that they can find the same characteristics in any given sentence. This may seem true at first, but this is considering only one aspect of the design in isolation – ignoring other aspects of design that are interconnected with the numerical structure of the Bible. The numerical structure is only one level of a number of interlocking levels of design, which are also incorporated within the same text, interdependent on each other. These interconnected relationships between different levels of design in the Bible, incorporate not just numerical structures, but also other particular qualities that are seamlessly interwoven into the overall design of the entire framework that makes up the Bible. Without being exhaustive, we will also discuss a number of the others in a little more detail. We recommend that you do some of your own study in this field, should it interest you.

Consider the following: The original sequence of the Books of the Bible differs somewhat from the sequence that is presently found in the English Bible. The most original or oldest text that was known at the time, had the following order:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Songs of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, Hebrews, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation.

Some of the Books assign themselves totally or in part to a particular scribe's name, while others are anonymous. The Books, which reveal the Scribe's identity (in part or totally), are:

**1.** \-- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are ascribed to Moses in other Books of the Bible.

**2.** \-- Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 Minor Prophets ascribe themselves to the scribes whose name the Book bears.

**3.** \-- Psalms is ascribed to David.

**4.** \-- Proverbs and Song of Solomon ascribe themselves to Solomon.

**5.** \-- Ecclesiastes ascribes itself only to the "Son of David", which most believe to be Solomon.

**6.** \-- Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah ascribe themselves to these respective scribes.

**7.** \-- James, 1 and 2, Peter and Jude bear the names of their respective scribes.

**8.** \-- Epistles of Paul ascribe themselves, with the exception of Hebrews, to Paul.

**9.** \-- Revelation ascribes itself to John.

The anonymous Books therefore are:

Genesis, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Act, II John, III John, Hebrews.

Moses has 5, Solomon 3, Peter 3, and Paul 13. The other identified scribes have one Book each.

If we now look at these collectively and consider the properties as we did for Matthew and Genesis we find the following:

**1.** \-- The sum of the number of Books in the Bible is 66 (6x11).

**2.** \-- The anonymous Books are 22 (2x11). The non-anonymous Books are 44 (4x11).

**3.** \-- Of these 44, 22 (2x11) belong to writers of more than one Book and 22 (2x11) belong to writers of only one Book.

**4.** \-- We can divide the number of Books in this manner: the 22 Books of the writers of more than one Book have a sum of 946 (86x11), while the other 44 Books have a sum of 1,265 (115x11).

**5.** \-- Of the 66 Books, 21 are Epistles and 45 are Non-Epistles. The names of the Epistles are James to Philemon and their numbers are 45 to 65. The sum of the 66 numbers, (1+2+3+...+66), is 2,211 (201x11) and this sum can be divided between Epistles and Non-Epistles. The Epistles have a sum of 1,155 (105x11) and the Non-Epistles have a sum of 1,056 (96x11).

**6.** \-- Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, David and Daniel are expressly quoted in the New Testament. The numbers of their respective Books are 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27, and 35. The sum of these Books is 132 (12x11).

**7.** \-- The Numeric Values of the Bible writer's names are:

Moses – 345, Isaiah – 401, Jeremiah – 271, Hosea – 381, Joel – 47, Amos – 176, Jonah – 71, Micah – 75, Nahum – 104, Zephaniah – 235, Zechariah- 242, Malachi – 101, Solomon – 375, Daniel – 95, Ezra – 278, James – 833, Haggai – 21, Paul – 781, Ezekiel – 156, David – 14, Peter – 755, I John – 781, II John – 1069, Obadiah – 91, Habakkuk – 216, Nehemiah – 113, Jude – 685

The sum of these Numeric Values is 7,931 and can also be expressed as (721x11), while the sum of the factors of 7, 11, and 103 is 121 (11x11).16

This is just another example of numeric structure found in the Bible, but it is a level higher than the actual compositional structure of the text, but it is nevertheless fully integrated and fully dependent on the structural composition. The names of the books and their numeric values conform to specific design specifications that become evident in the number 11 that forms the foundation for its design. If the number of books were different and if one book was left out, the entire structure would be void. The value of 11 would no longer be valid for looking at the numerical structure, with which the placement of books in the Bible and numeric values, with regards to the authors, was designed. Taking away or adding one book will break the pattern which exists in the structuring of various interdependent design aspects that are visible in the Bible.

When studied and analysed, these structures show remarkable complexity also in the use of very specific design criteria. This relates to the physical text and the message it conveys. It contains information that is hidden in the structure through equidistant letter sequences or (ELSs), but also accurate information (both in surface text and hidden messages about events that took place in the past). This provides authenticity of the reliability of the text and also of events that are yet to happen. All of these are reliant upon a structure where every letter that is used, would have a designated position. The way in which the letters are ordered form part of the structural design, which can be analysed by looking at the numerical, alphabetical, chronological and other qualities which form the foundation. Moving up to higher levels of design, one also finds that the Bible contains additional design criteria within the already existing structural design. These include hidden messages that can be found through Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELS).17 An ELS will normally provide hidden information on events and topics throughout history and even some events that we are expecting to happen in the future. In some instances it contains the names and detailed information about people not yet born, at the time when these documents were written. When reading the surface text in the original language, one can find information hidden within the text, which provides further validating proof that the Bible was designed outside of our dimensionality. If even one letter was out of place or position, the entire structure falls apart and the design would be broken.

I have only touched on a few examples to demonstrate the intricate numerical structure contained in the text of the original languages that exist at different levels in the Bible. From these examples we can see that at the lowest level every letter that makes up the scripture was intentionally placed in a specific position to conform to the overall design. To be able to place each letter in the Bible, in such a way that it conforms to specific structural and numerical designs and also form part of various other levels of design, while even containing accurate information about current events and people living today, can only be explained through the involvement of a Designer with supernatural abilities. This would be someone that would not be bound by physical limitations such as time or space or have any restrictions on the level of intelligence that we as humans are subject to. The Designer would need to know, and also be able to influence, all history from outside the domain of space-time. He would need the ability to anticipate and have knowledge of future events, at the time when the books were written, to be able to design and construct this masterpiece. He would also not only need to anticipate the language involved in the construction of the Bible, but even the values associated with the letters of the alphabets.

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is a good example of this. The information contained within the genealogy was generated over many centuries, yet every name fits perfectly into an overall design (remember that most of the genealogy in Matthew originated in Hebrew before Greek existed). This characteristic is observed throughout the Bible, yet no other book in the world has ever been found to incorporate similar attributes.

Another interesting aspect found in the New Testament, is the way in which Greek vocabulary words are used throughout the New Testament. The number of words that are used only by Matthew, is evenly divisible by 7.18 How could Mathew have known: That his Gospel would one day form part of the overall design of various books, written over centuries, having a specific order within the New Testament? He would have had to write his book last and had to know that the New Testament would contain 26 other books. It is even more astonishing to find that if one considers each book in the New Testament, they all demonstrate this very peculiar feature: Each book contains words that are only used in that specific book and are divisible by 7. From a human perspective, to achieve this feat, would be impossible. We know from historic records that each book was written at a different time, during a period of 50 years. The only other option is that the entire structure of the New Testament was designed to conform to a numerical and chronological structure which is humanly impossible to achieve. It can only be achieved by Someone who is not bound to time and space and who could inspire the writers without them even being aware of it. For something like this to happen by chance, 27 times in a row, with the result evenly divisible by 7, each and every time, rules out coincidence and emphasises once again the fact that supernatural design is in play here.

Looking at the Old Testament now at another example of design which forms part of the text, but on a much higher level and above the physical structure of the text, we find the following:

In Genesis 5 we encounter a very interesting hidden message in the first genealogy given in the Bible. It covers the lineage from Adam through to Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. Once again, when reading this in English, it seems to be an ordinary genealogy and even looking at the passage in Hebrews, containing the same information, might not provide one with the full impact of what is hidden in it. If we take the names of the people listed in this genealogy and list them chronologically from Adam to Noah, we have the following:

Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.

Next, consider the meaning of each of these names in Hebrew:

Adam is the Hebrew word for "man"

Adam's son, Seth, means "appointed"

Enos means "mortal death/sorrow"

Mahalaleel means "Glorious/Blessed of God"

Jared means "descend"

Enoch means "dedicated/teaching"

Methuselah means "His death shall bring"

Lamech means "captive/despairing"

Noah means "rest/hope"

If we now string the meaning of these words together, it constructs the following sentence:

" _Man was appointed mortal death/sorrow. But the Blessed God will descend, teaching that His death shall bring the captive/despairing hope/rest."_ 19

This is truly amazing. The message that is conveyed by the four Gospels and other books of the New Testament was already hidden in a "watermark"-like feature in the very first book of the Bible, written around 1500BC. This is not only evidence that the person who put the Bible together knew the future before it happened. It also serves as authentication that the same Person, who inspired the writing of the Old Testament, was also responsible for inspiring the writing of the New Testament and fulfilling the words that were hidden in the Old Testament, 1500 years earlier.

Most non-Christian groups today claim consistently that the 66 Books of the Bible are either:

**1.** \-- Mythical, fairy tale-like or

**2.** \-- Incorrect, unreliable, contradicting or

**3.** \-- Incomplete or that the original texts have been lost.

The question to ask when encountering such statements would be whether any of these phenomena found in the structure of the Bible, would be possible if even one letter was omitted or changed to something else. Would a computer program work if you removed one bit from the compiled code? The answer is NO. Would the Bible contain evidence of supernatural design if the evidence relies on each letter in the Bible to be in its appropriate position? How can any letter then be lost or missing if the evidence shows it completely intact, in the original languages?

Models that are used in the Bible:

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that he would come to Earth twice. The first time was 2000 years ago when he came as a lamb for the slaughter, as a gift to humanity to take away the sins of the world - to those who would accept his gift of salvation. Looking briefly at some other models that are hidden in the Bible, let us see what else can be found. If we keep in mind the supernatural design that is evident throughout the Bible in various interconnected layers, can we find any indication where models are used in the book of Genesis that point to Jesus' coming to the earth to free us from sin?

Firstly, let us take Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden where they were instructed not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge: There are many speculations as to what conditions Adam and Eve were living in during their time before they sinned. There are some who argue that before their fall, they were clothed with light and that falling into sin stripped them of this covering and left them naked. They had a much more intimate relationship with their Creator than we have today. When Eve was deceived by the serpent and ate the fruit, Adam was not with her. When Eve went to Adam to give him the fruit to eat, she had already fallen into disobedience before God. Adam would have seen the effects that Eve's choice would have had on her. The New Testament also confirms the fact that only Eve was deceived and that Adam knew what He was entering into when eating the fruit they were told not to eat:

1 Tim 2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Because of his love for Eve, he offered up his position in God to be with her and to be mortal. This is the first model used in the Bible that points to God so loving his creations that he would willingly leave his position, as God and Creator, and become sin on their behalf, so that they could become fellow heirs, with Jesus Christ, of God's creation. The Bible relates this clearly when talking about the "First Adam" and the "Last Adam". We know that the first Adam was a direct creation from God. He is therefore also referred to as a son of God.

Luk 3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Lord Jesus Christ is called the last Adam and is specifically referred to as "the only begotten Son" of God or God manifested to us in person. There are however distinctions that are drawn between the two Adams. Through the first Adam, sin entered into the world and death by sin. The Second Adam brought life to those who would otherwise have remained trapped in their sinful state.

Rom 5:12 - 17 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:21, 22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written:, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

In the examples above, the first Adam had a privileged position with God. When Eve ate the fruit, Adam could have chosen to remain in his position that he had with God. Having seen the effects of Eve's choice on her life, he loved his wife so much that he offered up his position with God to be with his wife, even if it would cost him his life. In the Bible God's love for us is portrayed in the same model that is given in Genesis. The Lord Jesus Christ offered his lofty position up to be born into a human body, to be raised in a poor family and to innocently die a horrifying death on a cross, so that we can be absolved of all our sin and be brought back into the relationship with God that he initially intended. Jesus Christ took on the punishment for our transgressions and provided us with his righteousness as a gift for which we don't have to do anything in return, but to accept it. There are various other examples of this in the Bible.

When the Israelites murmured about their circumstances in the desert, fiery serpents bit them and many of them died. God instructed Moses to fashion a brazen serpent and place it on a wooden pole so that those who were bitten and poisoned could look up at it. When they looked on it, they were saved from death and healed from the poisonous bites of these snakes. If we look at the symbolism, it is clearly another foreshadowing the future of which this would be a model. Brass or bronze is usually associated in the Bible with God's judgement. The serpent is normally portrayed as the embodiment of sin. Anything that is lifted up on or hanging on a tree, is seen by God as cursed.20 In this image we have God instructing Moses to lift up an image that spells out "God Judges Sin". In the New Testament Jesus was raised up on a wooden pole in similar fashion. If the serpent in the desert is in any way conveying a message about events that were to occur in the future, looking at this logically, we have in the desert people who dying because of their involvement with sin (being bitten by the serpents). God wanted them to look upon his judgment of sin in order for them to be healed and to avoid death. From a Christian viewpoint, we are all bitten by the serpent (sin) and are dying in our sinful living. Jesus, being without sin, became the serpent (sin) that was judged by God on our behalf, so that we could live. Being sinless, he became the perfect offering on behalf of everyone who would look upon him and receive his gift.

People ask why God could not just change his mind and forgive them without any consequences... Would God be God if he did not keep his Word? Throughout the Bible we see that God values his Name in everything he does, even above himself. There is one thing that God values more than his name: that is his Word. If God says something and does not stick to what He says, can He truly be God? The following verses show how serious God is about his Word:

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

There are thousands of models in the Bible that are used in similar fashion, where a situation in the past points to an event in the future - where it carries a message that could be understood by looking at the event as it occurred in the past. Continuing down this road, let us shift our focus to Bible Codes which became popular after Michael Drosnin's book was published. Here we venture into a whole new arena where supernatural design is also evident, but also intricately connected to and relying on the integrity of the structural layers that we have previously considered. This further authenticates the Bible as a product of intentional design from a supernatural source.

##### Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELSs):

The next phenomenon that we will consider is that of Equidistant Letter Sequences or ELS that are found in the original text of the Bible. These are messages that are hidden from plain view and that can be read if specific letter sequences are extracted out of the text by skipping equal spaced distances. This phenomenon was first discovered in the 1200s AD by rabbis who had devoted their lives to the preservation of the original texts contained in the Bible. They noticed that hidden messages could be found in the Hebrew text when skipping equal distances between letters. I have constructed a small example of how this works to explain the concept.

**R** on K **e** ats **a** ske **d** for **m** ore, **y** et a **c** res **o** f Pe **d** ro's **e** state had already been relinquished.

When reading the sentence above, can you spot the hidden message at a glance? One of the problems of ELS's is that they require a key to be able to decipher the information that is hidden in the ELS. If someone comes across this sentence in a book or a magazine, they would never consider the fact that the sentence actually contained a hidden message. Without knowing what to look for, the hidden information will not be conveyed and the person will just continue to read that which is visible in the surface text. Additional information is needed to understand how the message was constructed in the first place; where one needs to look for the code and the letter skip to read the message. If I told you to start at the first letter of the example above, write it down, count 3 letters then write down the 4th, count another 3 letters and write down the 4th and to continue in this fashion, you will be able to read the hidden message in no time. This is a simple example of what is known as an ELS. It took me a while to put this sentence together so that it would both make sense when reading the sentence itself, as well as providing the appropriate letters in the desired positions for conveying the hidden message. The process I used to hide the code in a sentence is aimed at achieving one design goal (to create an ELS), and does not at all comply to any underlying numeric design or higher levels of design that may also exist in the sentence, as we find existing in the Bible.

If we analyse the first 5 books in the Bible, they have very interesting features when it comes to ELS's. If you started reading Genesis until you came to the first "Tau" or "T", counted 49 letters (or 7x7) and wrote down the 50th, counted another 49 (or 7x7) and wrote down the 50th, you would get the word "Torah" spelled out. Exactly the same is true for Exodus. In Numbers and Deuteronomy the same is true, but spells the word "Torah" backwards. The "Torah" code is not found in Leviticus, which sits right in the middle of the five books which are seemingly mirroring each other around Leviticus. What we do find, however, is the Name of God "Yahweh" or "YHWH" in Hebrew with a 7-letter skip in Leviticus. If we analyse this phenomenon somewhat, it is logical to expect the word "Torah" to be found at various intervals throughout the Torah, due to the length of the word. It consists of only 4 letters which raises the statistical chances of finding it in the Torah at varying skip values. If we consider the accurate letter skips that are used in each case, the unique and defined starting positions in each book, and the patterns that are mirrored around Leviticus; it is statistically much more improbable that this phenomenon occurred as a result of mere chance. To me this demonstrates that the person who put this together had design in mind. For this phenomenon to have been included in the text by accident, we would have to multiply our already impossible odds of constructing the numerical structure of the text by another 3,000,000 to obtain the odds of this being a result of chance.

Taking this even a step further, the biggest difficulty with ELS's is that it is almost impossible to know what to look for when starting off. We have no idea what information a hidden message would contain, when reading the surface text. We do not know where to start looking for it, where the starting position would be in the text or what skip value it would require to make it readable. It was only in recent years, through information technology, that we gained the ability to perform searches within the text and to have computers do the searching for us. This would have been extremely tedious to undertake in previous centuries without the technology that we have today and it is amazing that people found some of these codes as early as 1200 AD. To explain the ELS search process in a little more detail, this is how it would work:

A person would install a Bible Code Search software program on a computer that contains various compilations of Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and even modern-day writings such as "Moby Dick" or "War and Peace". When the program is running, the user will then type in a search term and specify the text that they would like to search in, which could be the Tanakh, the Torah, the Peshita or any other books or collection of books. They would then specify upper and lower limits for the skip intervals (which could include both positive and negative values) that the computer needs to use when searching for the term or phrase. The computer will then scan the entire text, at various intervals, considering every possible starting position and list the results vertically in a matrix for each term that is found. An example of such a find is shown below:

Figure 1: Bible Codes

The search result will be shown vertically as we see highlighted in red in the figure. The first activity that the user will then undertake is to evaluate the matrix by looking at the letters vertically above and below the search term. This often leads to a passage that contains not only the search term, but also additional insightful words, elaborating on the original search term. It is like looking for a specific hidden word and once an ELS for that word is found, to see if it forms part of a sentence that consists of additional words, following or preceding the word, at the same letter skip. The next step would be to make use of the matrix that was found and look at the surface text within which the term or phrase was found. Often the surface text would either relate to the phrase or further expound it. Once this is done, the user can then search for additional terms which may also relate to the subject and see if they appear in the matrix. In many cases the codes that are found by just extending the search terms up or down, result in a sentence that contains the search term and is often meaningful enough on its own. Although some sceptics of this phenomenon have found similar patterns in secular books, their results were within statistically expected values. None of their examples ever compete with the length, relevance, frequency or complexity of codes that are found in the Bible. Neither do the books in which they are found demonstrate any complexity in design, as is evident in the Bible. Statistically, and if one considers this phenomenon to be a result of chance, one is not supposed to find the kind of information in ELS's as lengthy, as accurate and as complex as one finds it in the Bible.

It is relatively easy to find 4 to 8-letter words or phrases in any text, but to have meaningful and relevant codes of 296-letters that convey an understandable message about a specific subject or person is a phenomenon that is only encountered in the Bible. A 296-letter ELS has been discovered by Bible Code Digest researcher Moshe Aharon Shak. The ELS was found when searching for the name of the current president of Israel, Shimon Peres. It consists of 30 sentences all added together into one code with a skip of 8.21 If we now consider the numerical properties of the code itself and the subjects around it, we once again find the same design patterns that we have discussed in the surface text of Matthew and Genesis. Not only does the ELS have a skip of 8, but even the term itself is evenly divisible by 8 since 296=37x8. The Matrix is found in the Torah section called 8th. Shimon Peres is the 8th President of Israel. He was born on August 16, 1923 - it is in the 8th month and the day is also a factor of 8 or 8x2. His name has got 8 letters in it when read in Hebrew. Peres failed 8 times to become President of Israel. Through this example we can see that the patterned design around 8 is not only contained in the text that comprises the ELS, but even factors in attributes around the life of the person being discussed. The chances of:

**A:** \-- Finding a hidden message as long and as complex as this 296-letter ELS, randomly in any text,

**B:** \-- it containing meaningful information pertaining to specific subjects or persons when the discovery is made,

**C:** \-- it demonstrating similar numeric design as that found in the surface text and

**D:** \-- finding that the life of a person who will exist at some point in the future, after the text was penned, would form an integral part of the design that is encountered in the Bible, is completely outside of the realms of occurring by chance alone.

This phenomenon, combined with the others already mentioned, requires meticulous design, knowledge of historic and future events at the time of writing the letters that would make up the book in which these hidden messages are found. There are simply no other explanations that would logically allow for this to occur. What is even more astonishing about this code, is that it chronologically addresses the life of Shimon Peres in 30 concise statements, showing that whoever included this message also knew how history would roll out into the future. To review the full article and discussion, please visit the following webpage.

<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/386>

Another long ELS with regards to Mel Gibson was found after Gibson produced the film, "The Passion of The Christ".22 The original ELS that was discovered had 147-letters in it and had a letter-skip of 3,806 letters. After further study, Bible Code researcher, Moshe Aharon Shak, discovered that this code actually wrapped around from the end of the Tanakh and continued again in the Torah to add an additional 40 letters. What is phenomenal about this code is that the 187-letter ELS contains in itself 13 other codes, at different intervals and directions, making use of the original 187-letter code only. This 187-letter code provides a string of letters that contain multiple messages that lead to a total of 666 letters forming 85 sentences and all of this making use of the original 187-letter code with letters in the specific order in which they are found. This entire phenomenon is similar to what is found within the DNA molecule where the basic building blocks, or base pairs, are supported by a double-helix structure, the base pairs form genes and the genes form chromosomes.

Consider this for a moment: Have you ever encountered a piece of literature that you can read in one direction and get a meaningful sentence and then read the same piece backwards and get meaningful words and a sentence giving a different message relating to the same subject, making use of the letters in the reversed order?

To demonstrate how this works, we could use the palindromic example of:

" _A man, a plan, a canal, Panama"_

This sentence reads forwards and backwards and conveys exactly the same message. What is astonishing about this 187-letter ELS in the Bible, is the complexity of the fact that it actually contains 13 different codes that convey 85 different sentences, reading in both directions at various intervals and have the same negative outlook or describe something bad in each case. This phenomenon is only found in the Bible and no other book on earth has these characteristics. Please visit the websites below to see in detail what information is conveyed in the Mel Gibson code and how the Bible exhibits similar intricacies found within the DNA molecule:

<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/497>

<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/236>

Another very interesting Bible code is a 108-letter long code about Buddhism. What makes this code fascinating is the fact that it wraps around the entire Tanakh 9 times. This means that the distances between the letters are so vast, that it requires all 39 books in the Old Testament 9 times in succession to complete the code. Furthermore, this code conveys a lot of relevant information about Buddhism, not only in the message itself, but also the way in which the message is designed. Please have a look at the code and the interpretation of this code on the website as given below:

<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/606>

Something that I would like to highlight, is the fact that the number 108 is featured in this find, by just looking at the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet that is used. It just so happens that the number 108 is also a very significant number in the Buddhist religion - the Buddhist mala, or string of prayer beads, has 108 beads on it. This is a string of beads used to count mantras when followers of the faith are said to focus their concentration. Some Buddhists carve 108 small Buddhas on a walnut for good luck. Some ring a bell 108 times to celebrate a new year. There are said to be 108 virtues to cultivate and 108 defilements to avoid. The chakras are the intersections of energy lines, and there are said to be a total of 108 energy lines converging to form the heart chakra. If one is able to be so calm in meditation as to take only 108 breaths in a day, enlightenment will come. The sacred River Ganges spans a longitude of 12 degrees (79 to 91), and latitude of 9 degrees (22 to 31). 12 times 9 equal 108. In astrology, there are 12 houses and 9 planets. 12 times 9 equal 108. The code as it is laid out in the Bible also covers 12 letters per pass of the Old Testament and passes it 9 times or 12 x 9 = 108.

If we consider the complexity, not just of the message that was hidden in this wrapped ELS, but also of the design properties, we see the following aspects emerging from this code and can therefore draw the following logical conclusions:

**A:** \-- The ELS is hidden within - and forms part of and are fully integrated with - the amazing numerical structure that is found in the Bible.

**B:** \-- To make this ELS possible, would logically require knowledge of the future - during the time that the Old Testament was written - since Buddhism did not exist when the Old Testament was penned.

**C:** \-- It would require knowledge of the final order in which the books of the Old Testament or Tanakh would be arranged to have this design become effective.

**D:** \-- The person who hid this message in the Bible had to accurately anticipate the following aspects, millennia before they would actually occur:

**1:** \-- The name of the religion that would one day exist

**2:** \-- The number that would be considered very significant by this religion

**3:** \-- What the foundation of this religion would be.

**E:** \-- Having the ELS wrap the Old Testament 9 times extracting 12 letters from the text in each pass, proves and confirms that the entire Old Testament is word-for-word and letter-for-letter exactly what it was designed to be and that not a letter was lost or misplaced over the ages. If a letter was missing from the Bible the equidistant sequence would be broken and the code would have failed on the first pass.

Is it not amazing that one can actually look into the depths of creativity and observe this incredible mind-boggling ability that we, through our advances in technology, can only begin to see and realise today?

We find that Bible Codes convey accurate, although in some cases cryptic, information about events as they occur in today's life, also past and future events. The problem is that one does not really know what to look for until an event has occurred, or until a person actually exists, before you know which event or name you need to look for. The codes include information regarding subjects that were unfamiliar and unknown to the authors of the era in which the Bible was written. They also contain information about historic events that, from the writers' perspectives, would have occurred sometime in the future.

We live in an age, almost 2,000 years after the Bible was completed. Looking back in history, we can verify that as history unfolded, the information hidden in the text at the time of writing was indeed correct when predicting future events, both in the surface text as well as in hidden codes. Bible codes can sometimes span various books (starting in one book and ending in another or spanning more than one book or wrapping around the entire Bible several times as in the example above). Considering all these facts, it is mind boggling to even try and fathom how one would go about constructing an object such as this, containing the qualities that have been mentioned, from a human point of view.

How could any person know: What a person's name would be who will only exist in another 2,000 years? What this person will be doing, thinking and saying and then to not only adapt your writing style to include the predictions about his life, actions and words into a code hidden in the book you are writing, but is also contained in books that other people will write? How to hide all this information in an elaborate code? It is even more difficult to picture how one would achieve this when considering the design criteria required from the perspective of someone such as Moses. How would he have known that the Bible, as we have it today, would one day exist? How could he predict what would happen in the future and know the numerical requirements, which he would have to adhere to, for including codes about the future into his writing? Every single letter in the Bible fits perfectly into a masterfully designed, fully integrated compilation that can only serve its intended purpose, if each individual letter is in its intended designed position and remained there over millennia.

Various other books have been studied to see if they conform to similar criteria, but have been found lacking. None of them contained any codes that were outside statistically expected probabilities and none had any numeric underlying structure to them, similar to what is found in the Bible. None could correctly predict the future with clarity and accuracy as the Bible does.23

Considering some of the latest codes that have been discovered around prominent world events, like the unrest in Egypt, Ghadaffi's death, the release of Israel's Ghalit who was exchanged for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners and more, please go to the following web page for more details:

<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=7>

On this point, let us look at the Bible's ability to predict future events accurately. We have already shown that, hidden within the codes, it contains accurate and elaborate information about renowned people living today. J. Barton Payne's "Encyclopaedia of Biblical Prophecy" lists 1,239 prophecies in the Old Testament and 578 prophecies in the New Testament, a total of 1,817. These encompass 8,352 verses. Compared with the underlying structure of the Bible and Bible codes that have to be studied in the original languages, prophecies are relatively easy to assess and test for truthfulness. What differentiates the Bible from other books that predict the future, is that the Bible is very clear and concise in its prediction of future events still to come and based on historic records that have been verified, we know that about two thirds of the prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. There still remain about 500 odd prophecies, the large majority of which are focused on the end-times and specifically on the last 7 years that will soon be experienced.24 If we only consider prophecies contained in the Bible that have already been fulfilled, it further confirms with absolute certainty that the Bible is unlike any other book. The number of predictions about future events contained within the Bible and the fact that we find that all events that have occurred in our past, came true with 100% accuracy, not failing once in accuracy or timing, should leave one with sobering thoughts about the events predicted for our future. Some of these predictions that are still to be fulfilled are extremely ominous and paint a dire picture of the world in its last seven years, before the Messiah returns to reign for a thousand years.

Taking into account the number of prophecies in the Bible and the odds of having all of them fulfilled 100% by pure chance, we have odds of smaller than that of 1 in 102000. As we have previously explained, the scientific community's standpoint on something occurring by chance, with odds of less than 1 in 1050 means that it is absurd or impossible and cannot have occurred by chance. The fact that more than two thirds of all prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled on time with 100% accuracy, should convince us of the accuracy of prophecies still to be fulfilled. It is also absolute proof that this Someone is not bound by our space-time restrictions and is the same today as he was 4,000 years ago and will also be the same in another 10,000 years. The Bible contains more than 300 prophecies about Jesus Christ, his life and his purpose here on Earth. There are also some prophecies about him that still need to be fulfilled. Let us look at some of the prophecies that have been fulfilled and others that are yet to be.

Many people may argue that one can have different views and interpretations on what the Bible actually says regarding specific subjects, including prophecies. I think the best stance to take on this, is to ask God to reveal his Word to you through his Spirit, but to always measure the information, that is provided, against the Bible itself to see if it is true. An example of this is found in Acts 17:11

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

This verse described the Bereans who were open to receiving information about the Bible, but searched the Bible to test whether the information that they were receiving, was actually scriptural and true. We also have to deal with the barriers that exist between languages. Today there are hundreds of versions of the Bible based on various interpretations of the Hebrew and Greek, by people and organisations holding specific views about the information they were translating from the original texts. Some translators may feel that the information they are working with has to be translated literally, while others may feel it should be considered allegorically. Many of the new Bible versions that have been released will change or omit certain aspects, which will alter the message that a passage intended to convey. In my own experience, the best option is to read the King James Version. It contains some flaws, but over the centuries these have been properly documented and we know what they are. Compared to other versions of the Bible, it remains closest to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions. It may be difficult to read initially, but the more time you spend with it, the easier it becomes. Not having English as my mother tongue, I found it difficult to understand at first, but it became easy after only a short period of time.

We also have to deal with people's interpretation of specific meanings of certain concepts in the Bible. Some may feel that a certain sentence may convey a literal message 'A', while others feel that it conveys an allegorical message 'B'. All depends on one's view of the Bible. An example of an interpretation issue is given below:

Bible Code researchers have performed various searches throughout the Bible with specific attention to finding out who the true Messiah is. Christians believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Messiah who came to Israel about 2,000 years ago, as was foretold in many instances in the Old Testament. The Jews, on the other hand, reject this notion and they feel that Christians are mistaken in believing that Jesus is Israel's Messiah and that passages in the Old Testament actually refer to Israel itself, whereas Christians would see those as references to Jesus Christ. So, if we have two groups of people holding two different beliefs and having the same Book as basis for their beliefs, how does one tell right from wrong? Could it be that both are right, or both are wrong? One chapter in the Bible that probably causes most of the dissension between Christians and Jews is Isaiah 53, which is considered by many to be the high ground in the Old Testament. This passage directly prophesied the coming of the servant of God, or the Messiah, and portrays him to be a suffering servant who would offer himself up for his people so that they could be saved. Before we get into that, let us consider the surface text of Isaiah 52 from verse 13 to the end of Isaiah 53 below:

Isa 52:13 - 15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Isa 53:1 – 12 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

There has been a lot of controversy over this piece of scripture where Jews feel that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation Israel and they provide proof from various passages that show that when God refers to his servant, it actually points to Israel.25 Some of these, from the Jewish perspective are listed below and are also from Isaiah:

Isa 41:8 - 10 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 44:21 Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isa 48:20 Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The LORD hath redeemed his servant Jacob.

While Jews reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah and the New Testament in its entirety as being part of God's Word, Christians are of the opinion that the information conveyed through Isaiah 53, as with many other passages and models that are used throughout the Bible, points to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Looking at the evidence that Jews give for their belief that "the servant" is meant to be the nation Israel, it would at first glance seem to be a very plausible and reliable explanation, but this is true only if the evidence, that is presented, is considered in isolation. If we compare the same information in Isaiah 53 to other scriptures, prophecies and to the events as they unfolded during Jesus' crucifixion from a Christian point of view (also taking into account the information provided in the New Testament and the fact that Jesus himself declared that the Jews would be blinded to not recognise who He was) it fits the scenario described in here even better. So how does one then know which view is correct? There are many models, passages, and specific prophecies that point directly to Jesus as being the Messiah and also serve as proof that he is indeed Israel's Messiah. The Bible also prophesies that Israel will first accept the anti-Christ as their Messiah. He would not come in the name of his Father, but in his own name and that they will only recognise Jesus as their true Messiah during the Great Tribulation, where they will then realise who he really is and in their torment, ask him to return. Also, when people of the Jewish faith claim that Jesus could not be the Messiah, but that "the servant" refers to Israel, does this view conform to the rest of the evidence that is provided in the Bible? Does this view match aspects found in the Bible Codes and the evidence of similar supernatural design qualities found in the New Testament that are also observed in the Old Testament? Being objective, one would once again need to consider the scientific method and remember that a theory is disproven whenever evidence to the contrary of a hypothesis comes to light. We already know that the same person, who was responsible for constructing the Old Testament, also constructed the New Testament. If it is scientifically verifiable that the same supernatural design qualities are found in both the Old and New Testaments, would both then not need to be considered as originating from the same source and that both would be equally true, valid and important? Can we find any linkage between the New and Old Testaments that would confirm that they are meant to go together and that would reveal additional information not visible when considering only the Old Testament in isolation?

The Old Testament covers the history as well as the prophesised future of the nation Israel. The New Testament, especially the Gospels, focuses on the life of a Man and provides information in the other Epistles regarding God's church and the principles for living under his grace that he provided free for those who would recognise him and accept his gift. Many events, designs and models in the Old Testament, if carefully studied, are also linked to aspects found within the New Testament that would demonstrate through symbols, hidden messages and other devices, things yet to come. These are then understood and revealed when considering the information as it is presented in the New Testament.

Why do Christians then believe that Isaiah 53 actually refers to Jesus as the Messiah and that the passage does not only refer to the nation Israel? To start this journey of discovery, one needs to refer to Daniel 9:25, where the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel and gave him a very precise date of when Israel's Messiah would be revealed.

This is certainly one of the most incredible prophecies in the Bible where Gabriel gave Daniel a message regarding the nation Israel, interrupting his prayer in Daniel 9. The exact time span, from when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem would go forth, up to the point where Israel's Messiah would be revealed, was given to him. The Jews would therefore know exactly on what day they could expect to see the revelation of their Messiah. The passage below describes this:

Dan. 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

This verse tells us that from the time that the decree was passed to rebuild Jerusalem, until the revelation of the Messiah, would be exactly 69 weeks of 7 years or 483 years or 173,880 days. From a Jewish perspective it was common to refer to time periods as weeks.26 These would then include weeks of years, weeks of months or weeks of days. From a Jewish perspective it would not be seen as strange to refer to 7 weeks as 7 periods of 7 years. This prophecy made it possible for the Jews to know precisely on which day (down to the day itself) they could expect their Messiah to be revealed. From historic records we know that Antaxerxes' decree to restore Jerusalem, was passed on March 14th, 445 BC. If we added 173,880 days to this date, keeping in mind that calendars were reorganised from a 360-day calendar in ancient times to a 365-day calendar in 701 BC by Numa Pompilius, we arrive at April 6th, 32 AD. The 173,880 days would be calculated as follows:

**1:** \-- Number of days between Mar 14th and Apr 6th = 24

**2:** \-- Number of days from 445 BC to 32 AD = 365 x 476 = 173,740 – (there is no year 0 in changing from BC to AD and therefore number of years = 445 +31)

**3:** \-- Number of Leap years = 116 days extra required.

So we have 24 + 116 + 173,740 = 173,880 days.27

Did the Bible provide any information in the Old Testament to the Jews on how to identify their Messiah when he would be presented on that day or where to look for him? In Zechariah 9:9 a clear description is given in another prophecy of how the Messiah would be presented to the Jews, so that they could know exactly what to look for.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Did anything significant happen on the April 6th, 32 AD as predicted by Gabriel to Daniel? Interestingly enough, this was the exact day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, presenting himself and being hailed as King of the Jews by a multitude of people that were following him at the time. The following passage from Luke 19 in the New Testament, recorded what happened:

Luk 19:35 - 44 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way. And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

We see firstly that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, fulfilling the prophecies of both Gabriel to Daniel in Daniel 9, as well as the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. The Pharisees required him to silence his disciples when they were quoting scriptures from the Old Testament that pointed to the Messiah who would come in the name of the Lord. Because the Jews attributed the works that Jesus performed through his miracles to the devil, Jesus declared that the Jews would be blinded and that they would not know the things that are now hid from their eyes. The Jews subsequently refused to recognise Jesus as their Messiah on the day that was prophesied to Daniel by Gabriel. This is exactly what happened and is still occurring today! The Jews have been blinded to the fact that their Messiah has already revealed himself to them and has also told them that they would accept a false Messiah, who one day will come to them in his own name and promise them peace. The New Testament goes further to expound on the blindness of the Jews with a yet another prophecy where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, explains that the Jews will be blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Additionally, we also find the following passages referring to the blindness that was declared over Israel for not recognising the Day on which their Messiah would reveal himself to them. Does this mean that God has rejected his chosen people? The Bible even answers this question for us: In Romans 11 we have the following:

Rom 11:1 - 11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Here we see that there is still a future plan for Israel. Although they did not accept their Messiah when he first presented himself to them and as we can see demonstrated from the Old Testament, their blindness and rejection of Christ has allowed the Gentiles to become the election as seen in verse 7 referred to above.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 11:25 one can see that it is prophesied that Israel's blindness will end at some point and that they will recognise and embrace their Messiah at a point in time, when the fullness of the Gentiles emerges or when the determined number of Gentiles (or people from nations other than Israel) have entered into God's Kingdom.

Returning to the prophecies about Jesus, we have only touched on three Messianic prophecies that have been fulfilled by Jesus with 100% accuracy. There are in fact 365 prophecies in the surface text of the Old Testament alone regarding the Messiah, which have already been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ.28 The odds of one person in history fulfilling so many prophecies by chance, without failing in at least one of them, are once again impossible according to our scientific standards. This does not include the prophecies that are hidden in the codes. Another question is, if Jesus is the Messiah who has already fulfilled more than 300 prophecies from the Old Testament, was He aware of the fact that he was the Messiah, or did this just happen by chance from his point of view? Also, can one assume that someone could plan to live their lives in such a way that they would fulfil prophecies intentionally? It may be possible if those prophecies did not include facts such as your genealogy, your birthplace, the nation into which you were born. Also that your mother would be a virgin at your birth, the perfect timing of your existence in the history of the world, that you had the ability to avoid a massacre of infants when you are still under the age of two, that you were born into and growing up in a poor family, that you had the ability to heal people wherever you went and to drive out evil spirits and raise people from the dead. It would also be very difficult to ensure that the Roman soldier, who was given an order to break your bones after you passed away, decided to disobey his orders and rather pierce your side with a spear - just as it was prophesied in the Old Testament. It would also be impossible for any normal human being to raise themselves from the dead, after water and blood had flowed from a gaping wound in their side - proof that life has left the body. These are all aspects over which anyone, even attempting to fulfil prophecies through his own efforts, would be powerless to exercise influence in any way. Returning to the question whether Jesus knew who he was and what his mission on Earth was - consider the following passages:

Luk 4:17 – 22 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

What is interesting about this passage is that Jesus quoted a passage from Isaiah 61, but stopped halfway through the passage when he closed the book and declared that the prophecy was fulfilled in their ears on that day. He left out the part in bold below – let us look at this again as it is written in Isaiah:

Isa 61:1, 2 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, **and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;**

Why did Jesus pause and not read the entire passage? Would the prophecy's fulfilment be true if he included the part that was left out and told his peers that the prophecy was fulfilled on that day? This gives us a clue to something which is in the future. If all prophecies in the Bible are reliable and are proven to be 100% accurate, what does the day of God's vengeance have in store and when will this happen? We will look at this later. Another passage which gives us an idea of who Jesus really was is given in John 10:

Joh 10:17, 18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Can any of us declare that we have the power to lay down our life and take it up again after we die and then do as we said we would? Has anybody in history been able to return from the dead through their own devices and had more than 500 witnesses attest to the fact? Before his death, Jesus claimed to be able to do exactly that. He also proved that he was indeed able to do so, through his resurrection; where He was witnessed as being alive - talking to people and having meals with them, after his death on the cross. More than 500 people were witness to his resurrection after his crucifixion.29

Another example from the Old Testament is the prophecy regarding Cyrus and his conquering of Babylon, which was made 150 years before the event. The Jews, who were at that time captives in Babylon, showed Cyrus the prophecy of his life and actions as described in the book of Isaiah. When he read it, he was so impressed with the accuracy of it, that he provided the Jews with incentives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their city. An excerpt from the prophecy is provided below - remember, this prophecy was written 150 years before it was fulfilled by Cyrus:

Isa 45:1-4 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Comparing this prophecy with what happened on the night when Cyrus invaded Babylon, we also have the following passage in Daniel where we see remarkable accuracy in the events that took place.

Dan 5:6 Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

We can also see that in the prophecy God says that he had in mind what Cyrus' name would be and that he would also give him his surname. From a scientific perspective, if we compare the Bible to any other book in the world, based on the information provided above, we can without any doubt say that whoever created this book is endowed with abilities that no one on Earth possesses. The Bible itself elaborates on the Creator's qualities in the following verses:

Isa 55:8,9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Isa 40:25, 26 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Now, given the fact that the Bible was written over almost 2 millennia, by about 40 different authors and the fact that we can prove through scientific methods that the Bible contains enormous amounts of evidence of elaborate design. This is something that throughout history, would have been humanly impossible to obtain; even with the best technology available to us today, can we with absolute certainty conclude that, as mere mortals, we would in no way be able to get even close to reproducing an artefact of similar qualities. To construct the patterns, models or the numerical design in the structure of the text, while at the same time predicting events in the distant future with 100% accuracy, both in the surface text and in codes embedded in the text, would be absolutely impossible for a human to achieve. Only someone outside of our dimensional limitations and with an unlimited amount of power and intelligence would be able to achieve this – seeing events on Earth in front of him as if everything happened at the same time. This would be the only explanation as to how 100% accurate information concerning future events could be included in a book, long before the events actually took place. This is not the only fact that we can glean from the information above. If we considered the elaborate and detailed design exhibited within the structure of the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, we quickly realise that it would take super-human efforts to obtain all of the interwoven information and tasks listed below:

**A:** \-- A Book containing the history of a nation in the Old Testament and the life of a Man in the New Testament, including accurate descriptions of the lives of many people who lived during these periods and who interacted with the nation Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ.

**B:** \-- Creating the book by using 40 authors over almost 2 millennia.

**C:** \-- Ensuring that historic events occur in such a way that would one day provide a model of events that would happen at specific times in the future and also serve as pointers to milestones which are achieved as time passes.

**D:** \-- All of the information contained in the book is ordered in such a way that the text ends up demonstrating amazing numerical, structural and chronological features when analysed - the design structure demonstrating that every letter's placement was carefully planned, positioned and anchored.

**E:** \-- Designing the text in such a manner that future parts, which were still not written at the time when the earliest books were written, would be crafted to link in with those future texts, capturing the names of people who were yet to exist. Their names would not only match the numerical structure, but in some cases even convey hidden messages and be part of other hidden messages that form part of ELS's in remarkable complexity and detail.

**F:** \-- Structuring the text in such a way that it would seem that each book was written last - due to the fact that words exclusively used in that specific book were divisible by 7.

**G:** \-- Building into the text hidden messages possibly about every person who has ever lived and hiding that within the text making use of ELS's. We know that prominent people living today are featured and elaborate codes have already been discovered, containing accurate information about these people and various other topics.

**H:** \-- Penning prophecies of future events before they happen, ensuring that in all cases each prophecy is fulfilled with 100% accuracy and immaculate timing in every respect.

**I:** \-- Ensuring that all the aspects mentioned above are incorporated into one book in the correct order, so that all these qualities are perfectly intertwined and complement each other, and that each letter remains in its original designed position for at least 2,000 years after the book is completed.

I am sure that you would agree with me that to achieve something as complicated and elaborate as that which is found in the Bible, would be without any doubt, humanly impossible. Can any human pull off something like this? If we compare this information with works from historic figures like Nostradamus, could their works be compared to the design found in the Bible? You would find that, although some similarities may be present, the predictions by Nostradamus and others are in all cases extremely vague and require a lot of interpretation from the reader's side and are in many cases incorrect or cannot be linked to any events that have occurred or will occur. Neither do any of these texts contain any of the other complex design qualities which are found only in the Bible. The person who inspired the writing of the Bible was also intimately involved in all events that occurred on earth throughout history. He did not only intend to predict events in the future, but guided people in what they should name their children, so that the names would one day fit into the majestic design that would complete the structure, design and modelling within the book. People's choices were anticipated and required at the same time to form part of the way in which history played out and to finally form part of the chronology recorded in detail in the Bible. In every aspect the writer of this Book had to consider how people would react to certain situations, what they would say, decide, when they would be born, when they would die and what names their parents would give them. All this would be required just to begin to reach some understanding of what would be essential in achieving the complicated and humanly impossible design that is contained in historic events that have been captured in this document. From a human perspective it would be impossible to write a piece of literature and include a hidden message within that literature about a person who will be living in the future, who would become famous in the future and to be intimately familiar with what that person would do during his lifetime and then include this information in a coded message of more than 600 characters long. Also, to hide 13 additional messages about the same person in the original code at different letter skips and to be 100% accurate with that information is humanly unachievable. We simply can't imagine how something like this would be possible.

Most people are not aware that the Bible contains these qualities. In many people's minds the Christian Bible - and by that we refer to the Hebrew and Aramaic texts in the Old Testament and the Greek in the New Testament - is just another religious book, containing mythical information that is not verifiable, and questionable tales that are considered by many to be untrustworthy flights of fantasy. Many people would also consider this Book to contain restrictive rules, which limits what people can do and who they can be. This is not true. Although the Designer of this Book did provide his rules for living and perfection, they are there to show us what the Creator considers as good and perfect. He knows that in our fallen state, we are not able to achieve these and above all, he desires a personal relationship with each person on earth. He has done everything that you have not been able to do yourself on your behalf as a gift to you, so that you can be brought into a relationship with God where you are viewed as perfect, based on his gift. Given the information above, I think it would be necessary for people who doubt the Bible's authenticity and the relevance of the information it contains, to rethink their position. My argument in this case would be based on the fact that we can scientifically prove that the Bible was:

**A:** \-- designed and inspired on a level far exceeding human capacity and which no human would ever be able to replicate

**B:** \-- supernaturally preserved through the ages, ensuring that not one letter in both the Old and New Testaments was omitted, added or moved

**C:** \-- filled with information that is verifiably accurate, 100% of the time, when considering various aspects such as:

**1:** \-- Prophetic predictions that we can verify through historic accounts that were all 100% accurate and concise.

**2:** \-- Verifiable structural design at various levels which proves that moving or omitting even one letter would render it unreliable.

**3:** \-- Accurate integration of information in codes that are relevant at all times and describing people, events and various subjects as they occur throughout history without fail.

**4:** \-- Accurate usage of models in history which point to events, situations or people still to be at the time of penning the books which would eventually make up the Bible.

**D:** \-- The Bible even validates itself and states that all scripture was inspired by God and what it should be used for:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If we keep all these aspects in mind, what conclusions should we then draw from these provable facts? We are dealing here with a Book that is unlike any other book on earth. Each letter on each page in the original languages has been placed exactly in its position with the utmost accuracy and intent. We know that this Book contains many prophecies, which have been fulfilled, down to the last letter, for every event that was predicted and occurred in our past. With this track record of absolute accuracy, how should we approach information that is provided in the Bible with regards to events that will only happen in the future or information about the Creation account? Should these be treated differently? Are we supposed to apply our own interpretation of information contained in the Bible for which we are unable to provide verifiable evidence? Especially when we know that for all cases in which we are able to collect data, the Bible's accuracy is proven to be 100% true. Are we not being arrogant in our attempts to interpret the information in the Bible to suit our beliefs, or even calling it false?

Looking at the table below, we consider two sets of data. Both are found in passages from the Bible and form part of the supernatural aspects as discussed. For Information Set A, we may have current evidence or well preserved historic accounts through which we can validate the statement. We also find that in all cases where we do have the ability to verify the statement, it is always found to be 100% accurate. How then should we treat those statements or sections from the Bible which we are unable to verify authenticity? Would it be accurate to assume that if we can prove 100% factual truth in all cases, would it be fair to treat the sections or passages for which we lack the evidence or foresight into the future, with exactly the same attitude? Would it be stretching it too far to think that we can demonstrate scientifically that the Bible as a whole is a supernatural unity and that we can accept with certainty that it contains true information on all aspects - even on subjects that we are unable to validate, due to our limitations? If we know that the information contained in this Book, predicted events that would happen in the future with 100% accuracy and continue to predict future events which we cannot assess from our point in time, should we not pay serious attention to what it says about those future events?

Information Set A

Passage contains supernatural text structure? **Answer:** Yes

Passage forms part of numeric patterns? **Answer:** Yes

Passage contains hidden codes? **Answer:** Yes

Passage contains specific statements for verification? **Answer:** Yes

Humanly possible to validate? **Answer:** Yes

Findings of validated statement: Statements always 100% true.

Information Set B

Passage contains supernatural text structure? **Answer:** Yes

Passage forms part of numeric patterns? **Answer:** Yes

Passage contains hidden codes? **Answer:** Yes

Passage contains specific statements for verification? **Answer:** Yes

Humanly possible to validate? **Answer:** No

Findings of validated statement: ???

In my opinion, one has a decision to make. On the one hand you can select to side with the Evolution Theory. It emerged officially, about 200 years ago, when technology was still primitive and where proponents of the theory were unable to test some of their hypotheses. A theory, where the scientists themselves expressed doubt in the validity of their own theory about the origin of life and the complexities they encountered and where we now have ample evidence mounting against the validity of the theory. There is also no supernatural evidence that can be found within the Evolution Theory and the promoters of the Theory want people to exclude any ideas of the supernatural. On the other hand, one can decide to choose to accept the information as it is presented in the Bible. In my opinion, the choice one has to make is a simple one, given the facts on both sides. One can choose to rely on people's philosophical interpretations of what they saw around them, which we know is subject to human limitations, not only in space-time, but also the human quality of being prone to making mistakes. Or one can choose to rely on a document, which is scientifically proven to be far above human capability to construct, both in its structure and content, and which is proven to be 100% true in the information that it conveys. We have to consider that the information contained in the Bible also addresses our origins in the creation account in which it describes how God created everything and that it was a deliberate choice and action from God to perform his creative work. It did not happen by chance as modern day opinion would have you believe.

If one is to rely on the information as it is provided in the Bible and compare it with what Evolution depicts, can one find similarities where the two viewpoints meet or are they opposing? From the Internet, the following description of the Universe's formation after the Big Bang occurred is given:

" _The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10 -37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle - antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis, violated the conservation of baryon numbers, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons \- of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over anti-matter in the present Universe."_

The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature; hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form. After about 10-11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10-6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton-antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million kelvin) and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the Universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the Universe. The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, warm dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the data is well-fit by a Lambda-CDM model in which dark matter is assumed to be cold (warm dark matter is ruled out by early reionisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - cite_note-41), and is estimated to make up about 23% of the matter/energy of the Universe, while baryonic matter makes up about 4.6%. In an "extended model" which includes hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos, if the "physical baryon density" Omega-bh2 is estimated at about 0.023 (this is different from the "baryon density" Omega-b expressed as a fraction of the total matter/energy density, which as noted above is about 0.046), and the corresponding cold dark matter density Omega-ch2 is about 0.11, the corresponding neutrino density Omega-vh2 is estimated to be less than 0.0062.

Independent lines of evidence from Type Ia supernovae and the CMB imply that the Universe today is dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. The observations suggest 73% of the total energy density of today's Universe is in this form. When the Universe was very young, it was likely infused with dark energy, but with less space and everything closer together, gravity had the upper hand, and it was slowing the expansion. But eventually, after numerous billion years of expansion, the growing abundance of dark energy caused the expansion of the Universe to gradually begin to accelerate. Dark energy in its simplest formulation takes the form of the cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition and mechanism are unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the Standard Model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically.

_All of this cosmic evolution after the inflationary epoch can be rigorously described and modelled by the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which uses the independent frameworks of quantum mechanics and Einstein's General Relativity. As noted above, there is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10 -15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."_30

Evolution goes on to say that the Earth finally formed some 4 billion years ago and life emerged by chance about 2.3 billion years ago, starting with the simplest life form and evolving over time into the diversity we see around us today. This gives us a good idea of the progression through time and sequence of events according to the Evolutionary Theory.

The Bible says God created everything and performed his creation work over a period of 6 days and confirms this twice in Exodus. Many people will argue that the days, as mentioned in Genesis 1, were ages or periods of time in which God gradually allowed the development of everything through the process of evolution. Is this something that we can accept as true? If we look at the order in which things were created, according to the creation account in Genesis 1, we find that God tells us that he began his creative work by creating Heaven and Earth. He also tells us that the Earth was empty when he started his work and that Earth was covered in water and in darkness. He then created light and divided light from darkness, also on the first day. Whether these two events happened on the same day, or describes different events altogether is debated by many people; but we will see how the Bible interprets itself on this subject. On the second day he created the firmament which he called Heaven and which would divide the waters above Heaven from the waters below heaven. On the third day he gathered the waters under Heaven together in one place and created dry land. The waters he called Seas and the dry land he called Earth. He also created plants, grass and all herb-yielding seeds and trees on the third day. On the fourth day he created the Sun, the Moon and the stars and set them in the sky for seasons and signs and to divide the light and the darkness on earth. On the fifth day he created the sea-living creatures, as well as birds, and on the sixth day he created land animals and humans as his representatives on Earth – humans being the only creation made in the image of God.

Before we continue, we have to remember that our understanding of God's works is and will always remain limited at best. To try and fully explain exactly how God worked and what He did, will always result in failure, errors or misunderstanding on our side. What we do know however, is that God left us enough information in the Bible to understand certain facts clearly and that he also provided clarifying information in the Bible in anticipation of questions we may have about certain aspects unclear to us. We also know from previous chapters that the Bible contains the ultimate truth and that it will anticipate any relevant question that you could ask and also provide the answer to it, either in the surface text or hidden in a code that one could search for with the proper software.

If we therefore compare the sequence of events, as prescribed by Evolution to that of Creation, we see an immediate problem relating to plants that were created on day 3, while the Sun, Moon and stars were only created on the following "day" – day 4, according to the sequence in the Bible. Even if we do not understand all the mechanics and processes that God used to perform his creative work, we know, based on the provable accuracy of the Bible, that the sequence of events as recorded in the Bible, has to be accurate. If we think about this carefully, what scenario, as far as periods of time are concerned, would allow for plants to be created in one period of time and survive long enough without the essential source of photosynthesis that is needed to maintain them, until a source for photosynthesis becomes available? The only logical answer in this case would be a relative short period of time such as a single day as the Bible describes. If this era was longer than a year, there would be very few plants left alive, if any at all, when the Sun finally arrived. Looking at the Sun, Moon and stars we can also identify some peculiar properties: Have you ever noticed that the Sun and the Moon, although at different distances away from the Earth are exactly the same visual size when observed from the surface of the Earth? This becomes most apparent during a full solar eclipse. The observers of the eclipse will see the Moon moving between the Earth and the Sun and cover the Sun exactly. What are the chances of these relationships being perfect and this happening by chance? The relationships between the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, the rotation speed of the Earth, the tilt of the Earth's rotational axis, the exposure time of the different hemispheres to light and darkness (and many other critical factors that are related to the movements of the Earth, Moon and Sun to provide a life supporting environment) are far too perfect to have happened by chance. Scientists cannot explain how the Moon came to be where it is today. Although there are numerous theories, none of them properly fits or explains the fact that we have a rather large celestial body orbiting us and are unable to explain through scientific observations how it came to be there and has remained there over millennia. 31

Why did God create the Sun, Moon and stars only on the fourth day? Is it perhaps because people would one day adopt the Theory of Evolution? Did God in anticipation of this, have an order and sequence in his creation work, that would provide insight into the fact that it happened over a short period of time and was completed within 6 actual days, as opposed to Evolution's billions of years? How can we be sure that everything was in fact created in 6 days and that these days are not to be interpreted as ages? If we look at Exodus, we have the following two passages:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Here, God clearly confirms directly to Moses twice; by giving him the Ten Commandments, as well as a clear affirmation in Exodus 31 of the fact that everything, including Heaven and Earth, was created over a period of six days. These timeframes or periods are set equal to each other in both affirmations and are meant to be recognised and understood as 24-hour periods. With this information available and considering the fact that the Bible contains truthful facts, there is really no valid reason why one would assume that the Author of the Bible would intend the reader to understand a time period that is different to what was written, or to apply special interpretations to the information as presented in Genesis 1. The Bible is clear about the topic and elaborates on the statements in Genesis 1 through additional passages elsewhere in the Bible - answering the question with clarity and putting aside any confusion one may have about the topic. Some people will argue that the words used for describing God's creative work in Genesis 1 point to new creations that did not exist before in some instances, and re-creation in others. This argument is usually combined with the Gap Theory where people believe that Genesis 1 points to two separate events in verse one and two. The Gap Theory proposes that God created a first Heaven and Earth, that these were somehow destroyed and became empty and that he then had to recreate it in the 6-day period as described from verse 2 onwards. In the process of recreation, he then recreated pre-existent life forms and also new life forms that previously did not exist. This argument is based on the two words that are used in Genesis 1 to describe the creation work: "Bara" – which means to create and "Asha" – which means to make. In fact, the two Hebrew words that are used for God's creative actions are used interchangeably throughout the first chapter of Genesis. It is similar to saying God "made" in some instances and God "created" in others. The Bible does not provide any substantiating evidence, which would support the theory that God performed any creative work prior to the 6-day creation as described in Genesis 1. Some sceptics will point to Isaiah, where the Bible clearly states that God did not create the Earth to be empty and void, and compare that with the second verse of Genesis 1, in which the Bible states that the Earth was void and empty. Based on these two verses, they imply that something needed to have happened to cause the Earth to become void and empty. For clarification the two verses are given below:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

In the two verses above, the words "void" and "in vain" share the same Hebrew word "Tohoo", which means empty. To answer the question above, it is clear that the passage from Isaiah indicates that God is addressing his purpose for the Earth and that his intentions would be for it to be inhabited. This does not in any way relate to the sequence of events in Genesis, where God describes his creative works to us, but specifically the purpose of the Earth. Also, if the Earth was not to be empty before God started describing his creative work to us, would there be any sense in describing it at all, if we assume that it should all have happened on the first day? To demonstrate this more clearly: When an artist describes how he goes about creating a painting, we would not find it strange that he would start by telling us that he would need a clean canvas mounted on an easel. He would then prepare the canvas for oil paints and mix different colours of paint in different ratios to obtain the colours he wants and only then commence painting a scene with the various levels of detail. It would be illogical to assume that his explanation of starting with a clean canvas and providing the sequence of his actions to arrive at a finished product, actually implies having removed (erased) an earlier painting. If God had created the Earth on two separate occasions, why would he hide this fact from us and not clearly tell us that this was the case? He has nothing to lose by doing this. He does not need to prove himself to us. Through his supernatural abilities he could have easily included and confirmed this information through his Word at different levels. The fact remains that there is no evidence in the Bible for these beliefs. God actually confirms twice in the Bible, outside of Genesis, that the creation of everything occurred over a period of 6 days. It boils down to humans trying to read their own interpretations into the information. This would allow them to easier adapt the information in the Bible, to the views that are widely accepted by the majority of people and the scientific community. This normally leads to arguments, debates and many new versions of the Bible that distort the truth and diverge from the original texts. One would be entering speculative territory by assuming that the Bible should be interpreted differently.

Returning to the differences between Evolution and Creationism - given the information as described above - I think it is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the two views are demonstrably irreconcilable. The order of the creation events does not match that of Evolution and also does not allow for the long periods of time to pass, as proposed by Uniformitarianism and Evolution, in order to keep plant material alive when compared to the account as given in the Bible. Thus one cannot believe in Evolution and the Bible at the same time and one needs to choose one or the other.

Let us consider some other facts mentioned in the Bible that relate to God, the Creation and the differences when compared to the Evolution Theory. Considering our attempts to understand our Universe, the Earth and attempting to unravel God and His works, as the Theory of Evolution would have us believe we can do, what does the Bible have to say about this?

Jer 31:35 - 37 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Jer 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 51:12,13 I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass; And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth;

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Psa 136:6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Col 1:16,17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

In the sections above, we see once again that the Bible clearly confirms God's exclusive responsibility for and intensely detailed involvement in the creation process. It also states that we, as humans, are acutely limited and will never be able to measure or fully understand our Universe as we see and experience it today. Consequently certain questions will always remain unanswered. The Bible also states that we will not even be able to understand the Earth completely - and how true this is - we know less about our deepest oceans, than we do about the surface of the moon - not to mention the mantle and core of the Earth, which are currently part of our speculative reasoning. We have limited technology available to probe it and conclusions that are drawn are obtained from sketchy information at best. In the passage from Colossians, as quoted above, we see that the Bible states that through God all things consist. In the field of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, scientists today are only beginning to unravel some of the mysteries locked in these subjects. When talking about subjects like Zero Point Energy, otherwise known as Vacuum Energy, one would be dealing with empty space void of any particles and have 10107 Joules of energy contained within a mere cubic centimetre of empty space.32 Considering the size of the Universe and that it does not consist of empty space alone, but is also filled with substances requiring energy to consist; just imagine the amount of power that would be required from the Creator to enable the Universe to be created and to be maintained. We cannot begin to understand what is meant by through him everything consists.

How has our increased exposure to partial knowledge influenced our cultures and thought patterns? Are we becoming smarter, or are we actually becoming prisoners of our own misconceptions? In the second book of Peter we see the following:

2Pe 3:3 - 7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This section from 2nd Peter is particularly important as it has in mind the thoughts of people concerning the Creation currently. Why do I say this? The reasons are as follow:

**A:** \-- For many millennia people believed the fact that God created Heaven and Earth. Today, we have advanced technology available to us and have become so filled with pride and arrogance about who we are, that we are no longer content to accept that God is the Creator of everything and that he has the authority to command respect from his creations. With the result that people are scoffing and ridiculing the information contained in the Bible and even God Himself. People prefer to form their own views, interpretations and truths regarding the evidence in front of them, relating to who we are and where we came from. Where humans are positioned at the top of creation, being the most advanced of all beings, they take over and make their own rules as they please. People are most comfortable with not having to answer to anybody. This tendency is becoming more and more prevalent today.

**B:** \-- Uniformitarianism, an integral part of the Evolutionary thought pattern, is also anticipated long before it happened, as stated in the passage above, since many people today assume that God does not intervene in history by using the passage that mentions: since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. Today we would expect to hear something like: "Since the Big Bang happened, all processes have gradually occurred over billions of years and therefore we do not believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old or that a global flood occurred, as it is written in the Bible."

**C:** \-- The next section goes on to describe the rejection of Noah's Flood as an actual event that occurred in history. Hereby they knowingly subject themselves to a false doctrine, instead of that which is true: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. Being "willingly ignorant" tells us that people would in their last days choose to believe something which is clearly false, instead of holding fast to the truth. Is this not so true for the day and age in which we live?

**D:** \-- The passage also predicts that the world we live in now will be destroyed by fire. This is obviously a prophecy pointing to a future event. Based on the Bible's accuracy, when it comes to prophecy, we know with 100% certainty that this will happen sometime in the future.

To cover the topic of Noah's Flood: Many people and respectable scientists hold the view that Noah's Flood was only a localised incident and reject the notion of a global catastrophic event. Removing a global catastrophe such as the Flood of Noah from one's frame of reference and viewing it as a localised incident only, enables people to adapt their interpretation of the Bible to be more aligned with the views of Evolution. Siding with Uniformitarianism, it would allow people to look at the Earth and assume that much longer periods of time would have had to pass over the Earth to produce the evidence found in the fossil record and provide the human perspective of the Geologic Column's formation. The problem with viewing the Flood of Noah as a localised incident only, is that the Bible says that God promised not to "destroy the Earth" in this way again. To get a better idea of God's destruction through the Flood, let us see what the Bible has to say in the following passages:

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:21- 23 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

After the Flood transpired, God says the following:

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

From the passages above it is clear that God mentions several times that "all flesh" and "all living creatures" on Earth would be destroyed through the Flood which he had brought on the Earth. It also states that the Earth itself would be destroyed by the Flood. Can one then adopt an interpretation that God actually meant only the people and animals in the region where Noah lived? Would this be a true reflection of the meaning that is clearly emphasised through various passages? If God repented that he had made man, beast and birds, would he then only destroy 10% of them and leave the other 90% alive, when he said that he would "destroy all flesh" and destroy "everything that is in the earth"? Would he accomplish anything by destroying only a certain percentage as would be the case with a localised flood? Genesis 9 specifically refers to this Flood as a "flood to destroy the earth". God goes further; promising that an event of this nature would never happen again. Now if Noah's Flood was only a very large localised flood, as many people believe it to be, how does one go about explaining the fact that there have been many other large localised floods that have occurred since the time of Noah and that these are also occurring today with increasing frequency. Think about the large Tsunami that occurred in Indonesia in December of 2004, in which close to 300,000 people were killed. Many animals have also died in the process. What does this view do to the fact that God promised that he would never again make use of a Flood to destroy life and the Earth? Holding a localised flood view actually voids the promise that God made and makes him out to be a liar. We know however, that this is not the case. We can with 100% certainty state, based on the numerous times that Noah's Flood and its effects are mentioned in the Bible, that it was not just a localised flood, but a global catastrophe that wiped out all living creatures, except those that were preserved in the ark with Noah and his family.

If we do accept that a global flood destroyed the Earth and every living creature on the planet, except for Noah and his family and the animals in the ark, we now have a much better explanation that fits the evidence found in the Geologic Column. It perfectly matches the conditions for formation of fossils that are evident today. As discussed earlier, it is clear that rapid burial had to have occurred for animal remains to undergo fossilisation and to preserve the detail found in some of these fossils. We know that the Bible said that all flesh on the entire Earth would be destroyed. A global catastrophe in the form of a world-wide flood that covered the entire planet, would also account for the fact that fossils of extinct animals can be found all around the world and not just in one area. It would also provide an explanation for the fact that polystratic fossils are found in more than one layer of strata or type of sediment and that fossilisation preserved even soft tissue and fragile detail in the many samples that have been discovered.

Accepting a global flood still leaves us with questions. How would this event have occurred and how would it be possible to have the entire globe flooded by water all at once? Looking at the world around us today, it would be difficult to imagine that something like that could be possible. We should also carefully consider whether we should cling to our knowledge of the Earth's condition today, or whether we should rather look at the conditions on the Earth before such a flood occurred as described by the Bible? From what the Bible tells us, the world was a lot different in the times before the Flood from what we experience today: Below are some passages describing various aspects:

Gen 1:29,30 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Gen 2:5,6 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

From the passages above we can identify specific facts that indicate to us that different conditions prevailed on the Earth during the years before the Flood, compared to conditions on earth today. It sounds far-fetched and impossible, because it is not common for people to reach the age of a hundred and twenty years or more. People therefore have been conditioned by various sources to accept a world in which we have rejected conditions on Earth that could have been different. The conditions described in the Bible before Noah's Flood would definitely be considered as "different". Given the fact that the Bible can be scientifically proven to be 100% accurate and truthful, we can also accept the information regarding the time before the Flood as being 100% accurate. This means that it did not rain on the Earth before the Flood and that people did reach very old ages - in some cases close to 1,000 years. It also states that both man and animal were herbivores, before man sinned and death entered the world as a result. The Bible clearly states that death entered the world through the sin one man committed:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

According to the Bible there was no death on the Earth before Adam sinned. Evolution's standpoint on this is that the Bible cannot be taken seriously and that death was something that occurred long before mammals even evolved. Once again, we are facing two opposing views and you need to choose either one or the other; since both cannot be true at the same time.

To make sense of what the Bible tells about the time before Noah's Flood, you have to refer to the scripture to form a better understanding about what exactly is described and to recreate a scenario that would match the description given in the Bible. Here, I am not assuming or implying that my understanding comprises complete knowledge of the conditions that were prevalent on Earth before the Flood. I am however proposing a possible scenario. Let's see if we can reconstruct an antediluvian Earth with conditions matching those described in the Bible that would allow the entire globe to be flooded during a cataclysmic event, such as Noah's Flood.

Firstly, from the passages quoted above and also in other chapters and books in the Bible, we see that people, who reached ages of close to 1,000 years, lived before Noah's Flood. After the flood, the aging process' impact on the human body was altered and people's life expectancy changed from multiple centuries to a number of decades over a relatively short period of time. We also know that the Bible twice addresses this time of change in two passages that point to this change, although it does not provide us with clarity on what exactly occurred for these changes to impact on the longevity of man. I suspect the Bible codes will have more information on this.

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

1Ch 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

Interestingly enough, Peleg's Hebrew meaning actually means "divided" and Joktan, his brother's name, which is oddly also mentioned as part of this genealogy, means "shortened".

From Peleg's time forward we see that people's ages drastically diminished.

We read that it did not rain on Earth before Noah's Flood and that there was a mist that went up from the ground to water the surface of the planet over the entire Earth. In Genesis 1 verse 7 we also see that when God created the firmament, it served as a division between two areas of water. The one part would be on the Earth, below the heavens. The other part would be above the firmament or above the sky. This may seem confusing, but bear with me for a while. If we have doubts about something in the Bible, the Bible will always provide confirmation in one way or another and we see these waters above the sky confirmed in the Psalms:

Psa 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

In Genesis 7, the Bible states that all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and that the windows of Heaven were opened on the same day - resulting in a flood that covered the entire surface of the Earth and even the highest mountaintops. We have to accept that in conditions where there was not enough water available to produce a water cycle in the form of rain or having evaporation, condensation and precipitation around the globe, much of the water that we see in the oceans today, must have come from somewhere else – otherwise it would have resulted in rain. Noah's Flood could therefore not have been caused by water sources that were on the surface of the planet and had to have come from sources that were above the earth and/or below the surface of the Earth. The Bible describes these as the windows of Heaven that were opened and the fountains of the great deep that were broken resulting in the Flood. We can therefore deduce that the relationship between landmasses and seas in the time before the Food would also have had to be different from what we have today, to prevent it from raining. This would mean that the continents, that we know today, would have looked totally different in the period before the Flood. The Bible mentions the fountains of the great deep that were broken up, all on the same day that a flood was caused in Genesis 7:11. The fact that it is described as the "great deep" implicates that it had to contain a large body of water, which may have been locked up in subterranean chambers deep under the Earth's crust or even inside the earth's mantle. Genesis 1 only refers to "the deep" in the second verse of the chapter as being dark and that God's spirit moved over the deep. Does the Bible provide us with further insight into what is meant by "the deep"? Please consider the following clarifying verses:

Psa 104:5, 6 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 136:6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

Psa 24:1,2 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD"S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Job 38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

Psa 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psa 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

Psa 78:16 He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.

Psa 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.

Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

From the passages above it is clear that the Bible is referring to an underground body of water which formed part of the Earth when it was made. We see that Proverbs talks about the fountains of the deep that were strengthened – this shows that it contained a body of water. We also see that the foundation of the Earth is mentioned, which will not be removed forever. The foundation or core is said to be covered by the deep as with a garment, giving us an indication that the pre-flood Earth had a layer of water at some depth under the surface of the crust and above the core of the Earth. Psalm 136 and Proverbs 30 refer to the Earth as being stretched out over the waters and the waters being bound in a garment, giving us further confirmation of the actual layout of the Earth before the Flood occurred. There are also distinctions made between the sea and the fountains of water. Interestingly enough, the garment which is referred to in two passages above, firstly points to the water covering the entire Earth as a garment and secondly it describes the subterranean waters being covered by a "garment" before the Flood. This is also linked to the position of the "deep" within the earth. A possible position may have been between the crust of the Earth and the mantle, or between the upper and lower mantles. When we refer to the Earth's mantle today this could also be seen as a garment – since a "mantle" can also refer to a specific garment today. This once again shows how certain aspects were mentioned in the Bible, long before they happen and draws these connections long before these zones inside the Earth were named by modern day scientists.

If we consider this water body to have existed between the Crust of the Earth and the Earth's mantle or somewhere within the mantle, the verses above would apply perfectly and would accurately describe its existence and location. Do we however have evidence of this today? If we accept that there once was a large body of water trapped somewhere under the Earth's crust or inside the mantle, would we have some way of proving that it ever existed?

Surprisingly, there is evidence of this even today. We can also point to the remnants of this subterranean water body, when we consider water that is still being pushed to the surface of the Earth today from deep inside the Earth via underwater vents, fissures and hot springs found all over the Earth, under the pressure of rock masses bearing down on these subterranean water bodies, even after the passage of 4,500 years after the Flood. More evidence of this phenomenon, recently discovered by seismologists from Washington University in St. Louis is provided in an extract from LiveScience Journal in 2007.33 In the article, scientists Michael Wysession and Jesse Lawrence explain how they have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that would comprise the volume of the Arctic Ocean. This is also the first time that scientists discovered such a large body of water in the deep mantle of the earth through the analysis of more than 600,000 seismographs measuring seismic waveforms as they propogated through the planet. In their studies they were able to identify seismic waves slowing down slightly and being dampened in specific areas of the mantle which would indicate the presence of a large body of water.

When science advances enough for us to stumble upon evidence that was already proposed in the Bible, it makes one realise how limited we as humans are in our ability to understand the world around us. We ridicule any notion of a Creator and the information he provided us through his Word. Later, when we realise that our understanding and technology was lacking, we replace the old theories with new theories, even though we know that they are incorrect when compared to the evidence.

Continuing on our quest to rebuild a pre-flood scenario: In verse 7 of Genesis Chapter 1, God created the firmament to divide the waters into 2 partitions. In today's language it may not be crystal clear where the firmament would be located or what the Bible intends the reader to understand when talking about the firmament. Fortunately, there is always an answer to questions like these, which can also be found within the Bible. We know that the Bible refers to the sky when talking about the firmament, because it is clearly described in the following passage.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

This implies that the firmament mentioned in the Bible refers to the sky or the Earth's atmosphere.

Going back to the division of waters above and below the firmament or sky, we have to accept that water above the sky would have had to be somewhere in the stratosphere, while the water under the sky would be in oceans and in "the deep". The oceans or seas exposed to the sky, would have been smaller in volume before the Flood, fed by rivers form from the runoff of the mist from out of the ground. Let us evaluate all this information in a bit more detail and see what the effects would be on the environment, that people lived in, and how this could possibly all fit together.

In the first place, considering the Earth's present water cycles, we know that the amount of water on the surface of the planet, in relationship to exposed land masses, is sufficient to provide us with a water cycle in which we have evaporation, condensation and precipitation all over the globe. It also causes seasonal weather patterns that are influenced by the sun's warming of the Earth and the Earth's rotation on its axis, in relation to the sun. The moon influences the tides in the oceans essential for maintaining marine life and life in general. Today, there is no defined layer of water, suspended high-up above the sky that would remain there under normal conditions, but we know that water can be suspended in the atmosphere in the form of ice crystals.34 The mist on the Earth may have been caused by pressure that was exerted on water inside the Earth, by the crust, or parts of the mantle as well, through gravity - depending on where the water under the Earth, locked up in the "storehouses" of the "fountains of the deep"- was located exactly. Under immense pressure from the crust, and/or mantle, bearing down on this water layer, this water may have surfaced through fissures, capillaries or pathways in the crust. Water would also have been heated by the relative temperature of the rock at the depth at which it was located. What is interesting is that where water is delivered to the surface of the planet, slightly warmer than ambient temperature, it would have had a profound impact on plant life. It has been found through experimentation that when plants grow in an environment, where ultra-violet light is filtered out and where carbon dioxide content in the air is increased, they flourish and bear more fruit than under normal conditions today.35 A continuous mist watering system would also have ensured sustained plant growth all through the year all over the earth as plants would not have been dependent on rainfall for their water. Hail, weather storms and other negative environmental impacts would also not have existed before this time. Added to this we can now also consider the layer of water in the stratosphere. We would obviously need to ask the question of how a layer of water would be able to remain suspended above the Earth and at the same time, comply with the laws of physics we know to exist today.

Here is a possible explanation of how this could have occurred: Firstly, if we consider the fact that the Earth's magnetic field strength has been scientifically proven to have diminished by 10% over the past 150 years, we know that if we extrapolate this weakening tendency backward into the past, the magnetic field generated by the Earth's geo-dynamo would have been stronger the further back one goes in time.36 If we also consider the "fountains of the deep" in the time before the flood and the vast amount of water it could have contained, according to the Bible, it may also have served as lubrication agent to the rotational action of the Earth's core. We know from physics that an increase in rotational speed of the Earth's core in relation to the surface would have led to a larger dynamo effect and as a result, the generation of an even stronger magnetic field around the Earth. We also know that water exhibits diamagnetic properties - water is repelled when exposed to a magnetic field.37 Although this effect is not very strong, it is factual and does exist.

Now to recreate a scenario where we have a substantial body or layer of water that would be suspended in the stratosphere or above the Earth's atmosphere, we would obviously have some forces working on it. Firstly, there would be the effect of gravity. This would draw the water towards the surface of the Earth and the amount of gravitational pull depended on the distance from the Earth. We know that the inverse square law is valid in gravitational force calculations, which means that if you decrease the distance between two objects under gravitational influence by 4 or it becomes 1/4 of the previous distance, the gravitational force that is exerted between the objects will increase by a factor of 16. Put differently – the force with which the objects attract each other will be multiplied by 16 or the inverse of (¼), squared.38 If we now have a strong magnetic field, generated by mechanics within the Earth that are different to what we have today - considering that through extrapolating back in time, we arrive at a stronger magnetic field, using the mechanics inside the Earth after the Flood, and also keeping in mind that the core would probably have had more mobility within the Earth (provided by the additional water lubrication from the fountains of the deep, before the Flood) what would be the outcome? If this layer of water existed homogenously between the crust and the mantle, it may have prevented contact between the inner and outer layers of rock and aid in the mobility of the core inside the Earth – just as one would have with a present day ball-bearing for example. Once you remove the oil, it will fail rather quickly and mobility will be impaired. In the Earth's case, it may have had a profound impact on magnetic field generation. We find this interesting verse in Psalms below:

Psa 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

If we keep these possibilities in mind, we could reach a point of equilibrium where water could be suspended above the Earth's atmosphere: If a spherical layer of water's distance from the Earth was such, that the force exerted on it through the Earth's gravity equalled the repelling force of a strong enough magnetic field that repelled the water with as much force, we would have a favourable result and water would be able to exist in a suspended condition above the atmosphere. This layer of water, in the form of ice, may have prevented more of the sun's harmful particles and rays reaching the surface of the planet. Today we have discovered that there is an Ozone layer which is very effective in preventing harmful UV-B radiation reaching the surface of the planet. The rate, at which this layer of Ozone is diminishing, could also be attributed to some degree to the Earth's magnetic field weakening. The same conditions today would explain the existence of the Ozone layer which is found to form at a specific height above the Earth. The ozone molecules have specific properties that are impacted by gravity, the electromagnetic field that is generated by the Earth, as well as the current composition of the atmosphere.39

So we now have a situation in which the Earth, having a stronger magnetic field, maintains a layer of water in a zone above the atmosphere where the forces that act on the water are in equilibrium. We also have a different ratio between exposed landmasses on Earth and water - accumulated on the surface of the earth - based on the fact that it did not rain before the Flood. Plants were watered continually from a mist that came up from the ground, and together with the water layer above, the atmosphere would have resulted in a greenhouse effect that would have been perfect for plant growth and producing optimal conditions for plant life. Some other qualities that we can derive from this configuration would be the following:

**A:** \-- Since conditions on Earth would be such that plant growth would be favoured at any location on the Earth, including the polar regions, (where Mammoths today are uncovered, frozen with tropical plant material in their mouths, as if they were frozen in an instant under the present day ice layers) deserts would not exist anywhere on the planet.

**B:** \-- With more plants around the globe on larger landmasses, the gases that would have been found in the atmosphere, would definitely have contained additional oxygen and having a boundary layer of water outside the atmosphere, could have led to gases being trapped in the atmosphere and an increase in air pressure. This has been confirmed by tests, which were conducted on fossilised tree wax or amber that had trapped air bubbles in it, where it was found that the air, contained in these bubbles, had about 50% additional oxygen in its composition.40 We also know that oxygen treatment is used in a hyperbaric chamber today. When a patient with an injury is placed inside a pressurised vessel and the added oxygen under increased air pressure, it results in improved and more rapid healing.41 It is almost as if the human body was designed to operate under conditions that were significantly different to what we experience on Earth today. The prevailing conditions today do not fully support these requirements and therefore our bodies are no longer able to survive as long as they used to, during the antediluvian age.

**C:** \-- The layer of water or ice above the atmosphere would also have had an impact on the sun's effect on the Earth. We know that today our atmosphere and a thin layer of Ozone alone, consisting of gases only, in conjunction with the magnetic field that is generated by the Earth, protects us from a reasonable amount of the harmful effects of the sun. These would include ultra-violet, gamma and x-rays. At the Earth's Polar Regions, we can also see the effects of these harmful agents on our atmosphere in brilliant displays of the Aurora Borealis as charged particles from the sun are captured in the Earth's magnetic field. Where the Ozone layer has been depleted it leads to an increased rate of sunburn, skin disease and skin cancers in people who live in those regions.42 Imagine how an additional layer of ice above the atmosphere would have contributed to preventing damage from the sun impacting on life on Earth.

These factors would all have contributed to very favourable life-supporting conditions on Earth. So what would then have caused the Flood and what could have happened that resulted in the entire Earth being overrun and covered with water?

According to the Bible, the pre-flood conditions prevailed for 1,656 years. How was the water mist delivered to the surface of the Earth? Considering the fact that a constant flow of water was delivered to the entire surface area of the planet, in the form of a mist, the volume of subterranean water, which would have supplied this mist, would have diminished over the centuries. Added to this, consider the possibility of this layer of water serving as a lubricating section between the inner parts of the planet, resulting in differing rotational speeds between the inner and outer parts. It may be that as water was slowly pushed out from the great deep, to provide the mist on the surface of the planet, that the clearance between the inner and outer planes, on each side of this water layer, could have closed in on each other. Assuming that these layers would have had inconsistencies and that they were not perfectly smooth and spherical, some parts of the inner and outer rock layers may at some point have come into contact with each other. The diminishing of clearance between the rock layers, due to water being forced to the surface, may have resulted in the onset of a chain reaction, which would have led to the Flood. The crack may also have been caused by a passing celestial body, of enough mass to exert a gravitational effect on the Earth, that could have caused contact between rock layers, moving at different speeds. A sudden contact between the outer and inner rock layers could have exerted enough breaking force on sections of the crust above the contact point, to cause it to tear or a rupture in the crust to occur. This would have been aided by the immense pressure on the water trapped under the weight of these rocks. This tear in the crust would have raced around the globe in a matter of minutes as the water pushed through the crack and forced the two opposing sides of the crack away from each other, while sections of crust on both sides of the crack were still relatively well suspended on a water cushion. This crack in the Earth's crust would have released a torrent of water, never seen on Earth before and also never to be witnessed again. It would have shot up into the atmosphere for miles at supersonic speeds, bringing with it millions of tons of sediment from friction caused by the water rushing past miles of rocks through the cracks on its way up to the surface of the planet, and sweeping sediment with it, as it rushed out into the air and onto the surface of the Earth.

According to the Bible, this release of water went on for 40 days and therefore there must have been a substantial volume of water released from below the surface of the Earth. While the water was released (through the cracks and the sides of the rocks eroded away by the friction and resulting in sediment that was deposited onto the surface of the Earth) the floating landmasses that were still cushioned by water, would start to move away from each other. These moving sections of crust would then pick up speed over a period of 40 days, drifting away from the crack's origin, while still floating on the remaining subterranean water layer. As these land masses moved away from each other, the width of the crack between them would widen and the speed of the flow of water from beneath would decrease, due to increased surface area. As these tectonic plates started moving away from each other, the underlying layers which had been under immense pressure from the crust above, were no longer pushed down by the crust and as a result bulged out as we can see today in areas of the planet such as the mid-Atlantic ridge. This ridge would be perpendicular to the movements of the plates as they slid away from the crack. As the water ran out from under these moving sections of crust, the pieces of floating crust would also come to a sudden stop as they came into contact with the mantle, once the water lubrication was sufficiently depleted. As these floating plates, now moving at speed away from the crack origin, came into contact with lower layers of rock no longer being lubricated by the water layer, which was now mostly all forced out onto the surface of the earth, they would then buckle up or down. This force would push up the landmasses before them to form high mountain ranges such as the Andes, or Rockies; or down, forming deep ocean trenches as the plates pushed down into the mantle. Such an event would perfectly fit the evidence that is found in the Geologic Column today. It would cause instantaneous burial of plant and animal material, as well as humans living during that time.

In addition to this, the removal of the lubricating layer between the crust and the mantle may also have had a profound impact on the water suspended above the atmosphere. We know that while the subterranean water layer existed, the Earth's magnetic field was strong enough to counteract the gravitational pull that was exerted on the water, suspended above the atmosphere. With that water removed, and the Earth's electro-mechanical function adversely affected, and because we can today measure a continuous decline in Earth's magnetic field strength, we can postulate that gravity would have overcome the magnetic field's influence on the layer of water above the atmosphere as a result of the rotational core mechanics being altered. This layer of water above the atmosphere ( under a gravitational pull that would now be stronger than the force exerted by the electro-magnetic field) would have rained down on the Earth adding to the subterranean water, which was released onto the surface, resulting in a massive deluge that would have covered the entire planet. With the layer of water above the atmosphere removed, a weaker magnetic field and new water to landmass ratio on the surface of the planet, affecting gas composition, air pressure and an altered level of protection against cosmic radiation, the previous conditions on Earth would be changed forever and forgotten over time. Imagine also the effect of such an event on plant and animal life. There would be a total wipe-out of all life, while some of the animal and plant remains would be buried under the massive quantities of sediment that would spew out of the crack and later roll out sideways, away from the cracks onto the surface of the planet. These would bury animals and plants, rapidly cutting off exposure to decaying agents and allow the remains to fossilise during the subsequent years that followed. The sequence of events portrayed in such a scenario, although all the mechanics and the physical cause of such a catastrophe may not be 100% accurate, comes a lot closer to matching the evidence around us in the world today, while it utilises the information as portrayed in the Bible as a foundation. Discovering the processes by which the Creator placed the water layer above the atmosphere in the first place or how a water layer ended up between rock-layers beneath the earth may be a futile exercise. If we consider that the firmament was created in a day and that it divided the waters; we may as well assume that God put it there himself, just because he could do whatever he pleased and has the power to do so by just uttering the words. If he can create out of nothing, he can surely put water between layers of rock or up in the sky and put forces in place that would keep it there for a certain period of time.

Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

These new discoveries point to the fact that our understanding of the Earth and its composition is ever in need of improvement, but if we keep to what the Bible describes and fit our knowledge to the information contained therein, we stay on a path that would eventually point us in the right direction.

Another section from the Bible that specifically anticipates and addresses the Theory of Evolution is given in the passages below:

Rom 1:19 - 32 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The section above highlights a number of issues especially prevalent in today's circumstances:

**A:** \-- The passage starts off by saying that what can be known of God, can be found within ourselves – we have the ability to reason and understand that the complexity of the DNA (which can now clearly be seen and understood through our technologically advanced systems, instrumentation and analysis at microscopic level) which has existed since God created life, cannot have happened by chance when measured by our own standards. We are therefore creations of the Creator and not the product of chance. Yet, people refuse to accept this and against common sense, choose to hold on to foolish thoughts.

**B:** \-- This passage also predicts that people will one day profess themselves to be wise in changing their belief that God was the Creator of all things, to that which is represented by mere mortals through images in the form of various animals or, as we better know it today, "The Origin of Species" and the fossil record containing all kinds of animal remains, which is now accepted by the majority as the source of our existence.

**C:** \-- This passage also addresses the consequences of adopting a false belief when it comes to understanding our origin - it specifically spells out homosexuality as a result of this - but not only that, there are also 24 other characteristics that are mentioned, which would be found increasingly in people if they changed their belief from that of being created by God, to that of spontaneously evolving. If we consider how society has changed over the past century, we have to agree that it has become more evil, morals have declined and this is clearly highlighted through the media today. We can put a checkmark next to each of the 24 aspects referred to above.

Strengthening this situation we also have a description in Psalm 2 which reads as follows:

Psa 2:1 - 4 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Joh 12:43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God

Here we see the Bible describing people's engagement in foolish thoughts and deeds and thinking that if they applied enough effort, they would be able to free themselves from being subject to God. This attitude has led to rebellion against God over the years. It has progressed to such a state that some countries place a total ban on referring to the Judeo-Christian God. In most countries he is no longer allowed to be part of any curriculum in schools and in some you could face execution, if you refer to him. The fact that he exists and that he is in control will not change; no matter what we as humans do. One has to ask why many people would prefer to imagine that their Creator does not exist. Why would one choose to abandon the truth to adopt a lie and live in ignorance of that which is available to us, if we recognise him for who he is and step into a relationship with him?

Given these facts, what attitude should we adopt with respect to what is written in the Bible? Should we not pay careful attention to the message it conveys? If we know and can scientifically prove with 100% certainty that the Bible is the only Book on Earth that demonstrates that a supernatural Being was responsible for its construction in its entirety; that every letter in the original languages, in which this Book was written, was placed in their individual positions with intense purpose and that this Book has been preserved through the ages without changing, omitting or adding one letter, does this not give us enough reason to at least read it and try to understand what is our Creator's purpose for us?

If the Bible anticipates events that would happen in the future, should we not then measure information, doctrines and "facts" that are forced onto us in today's world, against that which is written in the Bible? Should we search for truth and answers to questions about eternity anywhere else, if this Book is the only document on Earth that can be proven to have originated from beyond our space-time and provides ample information about the topics we would like to know about? Would it be wise to adopt beliefs that are based on human hypotheses and theories alone - especially if there is mounting evidence against those theories? Would it be wise to risk one's eternal destiny to follow after conjured up human fantasies and philosophies that have no provable basis for authenticity?

In today's situation, where relativism has taken over and where there are more than 10,000 differing religious beliefs in the world, people are encouraged to find the truth that suits their lifestyle. This viewpoint unfortunately clouds the understanding of what is meant by right and wrong and between truth and falsehood. It also removes the necessity for people to evaluate subjects objectively and to ask the important questions. People no longer feel the need to investigate a matter at its root, since if it does not fit your specific "truth", just look for something "true" elsewhere with which you are happy. Can one really take a relativistic stance with confidence, when it comes to anything for which proof exists, contrary to that in which one believes? If the Bible tells us that we are eternal beings and our choices today affect our relationship with our Creator and that our eternity depends on the choices we make while we are alive on Earth, should we not pay attention to what is said in a document that comes from Someone who holds the world's past, present and future in his hands? If this Person is intimately involved with you, having given you your body and having created your soul and spirit within you which will never die, who is with you every second of every day of your life and says that He knows you better than you know yourself, who even knows how many hairs you have on your head at any time of your life; should we not listen to him if he states that he loves us and wants to be in a relationship with us? If the information within the pages of this hyper-dimensional document paints a defined picture of the wonderful gift that God has given us. He tells us about the consequences of choices that we make during our time here on Earth and how they will affect our eternity after we die. Surely we have not only been given the loving option to choose correctly, but have also been given life through his Spirit that lives within us after that choice.

# Chapter 6: What are the Implications for my Life?

So what are we to do, where do we go from here and what does the Bible say about us and our relationship with God? God has given us the knowledge to understand that He has given us his Book containing all the information he requires us to know. This information provides instructions on what to believe, how to make the right decisions and how to live a life in which we can experience a loving personal relationship with the Creator of all things. In no way does God force anybody to do as he says. It remains a person's own choice to choose as you will and God accepts everybody's choice. Although the Bible shows us what God sees as good and acceptable in his own eyes, especially in the Old Testament and in God's dealings with Israel where He gave them his laws, it goes further to explain that nobody is able to keep his laws.

Psa 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Today we know that God put the Bible together in such a way that we can clearly understand his attitude towards sin, which is presented to us in the Old Testament. His requirements however, are far beyond our abilities to keep and therefore we are all falling short. The Bible also clearly states that no flesh will be justified by keeping the law. In the New Testament God explains to us how much he loves us and that even though we are not measuring up to his requirements, he gave his life on the cross to pay for our sins, so that his requirements could be met, and we can return to the relationship that he intended us to have with him.

Nothing we do will ever surprise or impress God and there is nothing that we can say or do, that would ever affect God's favour towards us. The Bible makes this clear. Many people see the Bible as a Book full of rules which strips you of your own choices - a set of laws that would stifle your lifestyles and put you in a cage. Many people also see failure from our side as reason for punishment. This is the foundation of most religious beliefs. Religion requires people to commit themselves to rules, rituals and tradition and to do exactly as a specific religion prescribes. All religions, except Christianity, are based on the work that people do to earn favour with their deities. The Bible clearly declares in the passages above that no person will be justified in God's eyes by attempting to keep his laws; yet many people still think that they can prove God wrong. Instead, God knows that we are unable to keep his laws, but loves us with such passion, that he gave himself to us in the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, who lived a sinless life and died for our sins on the cross - paying our debt to God on our behalf - the only sacrifice that would be acceptable in God's eyes. God's only requirement of us is to accept his gift to us and to re-establish the intimate relationship that was lost, when Adam sinned. There are no rules to obey, no rituals to perform and no traditions to keep. Implying that we can earn God's favour through rituals or by keeping to certain rules, is a warped view, instilled by our enemies.

Heb 10:5 - 10 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

So what does the Creator of the Universe expect of us? Just for us to say: Thank you for a wonderful gift and to accept an intimate relationship with him. Once you enter into that relationship with him, your life will be changed, since He would live in you, through his Spirit.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus

Rom 8:35 - 39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Whatever choice we make, God will never interfere. He values the human will to execute decisions, with absolute resolution - whether they are right or wrong. When Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, God did not prevent him from doing so. God did warn him of the consequences. After Adam made the wrong choice, God had already devised a plan to correct the relationship that was broken through Adam's choice, and through his plan to demonstrate to us how much he loves us. Adam's choice however had consequences: It changed the relationship between man and God from intimate to distant and man was driven from the garden in which God had placed him, as a result. Man and the Creation as a whole suffered because of Adam's decision to disobey God. The worst consequence is that man lost his authority over the Earth through this wrong choice and handed his authority over to Satan. This can be seen through the fact that when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert before his crucifixion, Satan offered him all the kingdoms on the earth in the following verses:

Luk 4:5 - 7 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

The Lord Jesus did not contest the fact that these kingdoms belonged to Satan, but God, through Jesus, purchased this lost authority back for man through his sinless death on the cross as payment for our sins. Through this absolution, he reinstated the intimate relationship with God, as well as the authority over the Earth and over Satan that was lost through Adam. God gives this privileged position of authority back to us as a gift for which he asks nothing in return \- we only have to accept and believe it to obtain it.

Rev 3:20, 21 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

In Rev 3:20, it is clear that God wants to enter into a relationship with all persons. He does not break the door down to go into people's lives; neither does he expect us to go out looking for him. He is already there, knocking on the door and if we would only hear his voice, open the door and invite him into our lives, he says that he would grant us his authority to rule with him over his creation. This also includes power over Satan and his fallen angels, who have legal power over all people who have not accepted God's gift to us. Is this not wonderful? Is there anything that could be easier to do and that would be more desirable to us as humans to obtain? It is not a difficult choice to make and there are no strings attached. It is a loving gift from the Creator of the Universe to us which is available to all who would be willing to accept it.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

2Th 2:16, 17 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jn 4:12 - 15 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

It is clear that God's intention for the law is to have us understand his attitude towards sin and how he views sin. We are not saved by keeping those laws, but by accepting his redemption on the cross on our behalf. Once we accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, we enter into an intimate relationship with God - such as Adam had before he sinned. Although we have not yet received glorified bodies, which Adam and Eve had before their transgression, we know that all people who have accepted his gift of salvation, will be given new glorified spiritual bodies at his second coming, when he will be fulfilling the second part of Isaiah's prophecy, which he left out when he read it to the Jews in the temple. While we are still on Earth, waiting for Jesus' return, what does the Bible say about our position in God and the privileges of having an intimate relationship with him?

Eph 2:19 - 22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Eph 4:7, 8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

1Co 12:4 - 10 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Luk 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Mar 16:17,18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Remember that the Bible can be proven to be 100% true and that the information, as given above, has also been proven true in the lives of people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. At this point would you not want to make that choice? It does not require any laborious effort on your part, other than to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your life through his Spirit. If you want this privilege and the promises that God left us in his Bible, especially in the ages that are yet to come after the one we are living in, you can pray the following prayer and ask God to come into your life and to change your relationship with him:

"Heavenly Father, I know that you love me with all your heart. I know that I am guilty and my life is sinful. I am lost without your saving grace and I know that I can do nothing to earn my salvation. Please forgive me for not obeying you – for not loving you with all of my heart or my neighbour as myself and wash all my sins away through the precious blood of your Son, Jesus Christ. Today, I choose an intimate relationship with you. Lord Jesus, I have heard your voice and I open the door of my heart to you, please come into my life and change my life according to your Word. Please fill me now with your Holy Spirit so that I can love you back. Help me also to live my life according to the commandments you gave us in your Word – not to earn anything from you, but to be pleasing in your eyes. Thank you for your grace and love and keep me until you return to establish your Kingdom on Earth. This I pray in the name above all names: Jesus Christ and I thank you for now coming into my life. Please use my life in your Kingdom from this day forward. Amen."

If you prayed this prayer earnestly and desire the Holy Spirit to become part of your life, the Bible clearly states how God feels about this when people asks him:

Rev 3:20, 21 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

# Chapter 7: Final Thoughts

I ask that you consider the information that was presented to you in this book with an open mind and to be objective about it. Coming back to the question of distinguishing between fact and falsehood, I think it is clear from our limited abilities in the fields of science and many other disciplines, that we are very far from knowing everything that there is to know. We listen to people's ideas and views about subjects - you have also considered my personal views in this book - but in the end you need to know whether the information that is presented by someone else can be fully substantiated and/or trusted completely. Is the information that is presented to you based on facts that can be proven as 100% true - leaving no doubt in your mind when you evaluate the claims? Do these arguments have missing pieces that do not fit the claims that are made, or is there evidence that would go against them? If this is the case, the claims are false and not based on facts. If you are honest with yourself, it is necessary to ask these questions when you have to face new ideas or views, and constantly evaluate those ideas and theories that have been with us for many years (as our ability to properly evaluate them improves over time). Be aware of the fact that people adopt many ideas and theories in defiance of the truth since the alternative would not fit their worldview or the responsibility it would place on their shoulders toward their Creator.

In your search for the truth I would recommend that you make your own personal study of this incredible Book that the Creator of the Universe has provided for us to learn more about him, ourselves, our enemy who is described as "The prince of the power of the air" and our ultimate destiny as children of God. Ask our Heavenly Father to open your eyes, so that you can understand his Word and to reveal the secrets to you that he has hidden away between the pages of this incredible document. The Bible says the following:

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Job 32:8, 9 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.

Pro 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co 1:25 - 28 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Col 1:9, 10 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Once you allow the our Heavenly Father to reveal himself and his Word to you through his Holy Spirit, you will receive knowledge and the wisdom to discern between foolishness and wisdom. Test everything - doctrine, idea, or theory against the information provided in God's Word. There is nothing in this world that the Creator did not know about before it happened and has provided his answers for through his Word.

May the information in this book assist you in understanding that God loves you with all his heart. He has given you freedom of choice in the matter – whether you choose your life to be under Satan's rule while you live on Earth, or whether you would like to claim your rightful inheritance as heir of God and be part of his family that will rule over the world with him, when he returns in the near future. Your Creator wants to be in an intimate relationship with you and pour his grace and mercies upon your life, now and even more so in the ages to come. It may not always be easy to live in a world where so many people do not even believe that God actually exists. The Bible also says that when you accept Christ as your Saviour, the world will reject you, just as they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ when he came to save us. It is not easy to live in ridicule or to be rejected by friends and family, but if we belong to him, the rewards in the ages to come are unfathomable. The Bible is also clear about this:

Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and keep you, may the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May the Lord Jesus Christ lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. All the glory, praise and honour go to the Lord Jesus Christ who reigns forever and ever.

END

Thank you for taking the time to read this book. Please take a moment to leave a comment at the site from which you downloaded. You may also contact me at <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=718537403>

or

by email at jprinsloo@gmail.com

# Bibliography

##### Introduction

1. Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/belief/>>

##### 1: So Many Viewpoints

1. Worldometers – Real time world statistics, 29 Oct. 2011, <<http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/>>

2. Newman, Barbara M. and Philip R. Newman. Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach, Tenth Edition, (Thousand Oaks: Michele Sordi, 2009)

3. Ferraro, Gary P. and Susan Andreatta. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective, Eighth Edition, (Thousand Oaks: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2009)

4. Kasser, Tim. The High Price of Materialism, (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2002)

5. Ruddock, Ralph. Six approaches to the person, (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul Ltd, 1972)

6. Gritzner, Charles F. and Carol Ann Gillespie, Mexico, Revised Edition, (New York: Chelsea House Publications, 2005)

7. Robert J. Smith and Richard King Beardsley. Japanese Culture: Its Development and Characteristics. (London: Routledge, 1963)

8. Tozer, Aiden Wilson and James L. Snyder, The Purpose of Man: Designed to Worship, (Ventura, California: Regal Books, 2009)

9. Milliken, William and Bruce Albert. Yanomami: A Forest People. (Surrey: Kew Publishing, 1999)

10. Inuit, Wikipedia.org, 30 Oct 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit>>

11. Barrett, David B. "A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World." World Christian Encyclopedia 2001. (Oxford University Press, 2001)

12. Relativism, Wikipedia.org, 20 Mar. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism/>>

13. Hate Crimes Language Prompts Republicans To Vote Against Defense Bill, RTT News. 8 Oct. 2009 <<http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1089080>>

14. Gravitation, Wikipedia.org, 20 Mar. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation/>>.

15. Iranian Website Repaints Holocaust 'Lie', FightHatred.com, 05 Aug. 2010 <  http://fighthatred.com/web-of-hate/holocaust-denial/784-iranian-website-repaints-holocaust-lie>.

16. Williams, Kipling D., Joseph P. Forgas and William von Hippel.The social outcast: ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. (New York: Psychology Press, 2005)

17. Gorman, Lyn and David McLean. Media and society into the 21st century: a historical introduction, (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

18. Blum, Virginia L. Flesh wounds: the culture of cosmetic surgery. (Berkeley and Los Angeles California: University of California Press, 2003)

19. Brueggemann, John. Rich, free, and miserable: the failure of success in America. (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2010)

20. Gaffal, Margit. Psychosocial and Legal Perspectives of Marital Breakdown: With Special Emphasis on Spain, (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010)

21. Single parent, Wikipedia.org, 17 Oct. 2011 <http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Single parent>

22. Wolfinger, Nicholas, H. Understanding the divorce cycle: the children of divorce in their own marriages. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)

23. Today's Family Culture, InStep Ministries, 29 Oct. 2011 <<http://www.instepministries.com/pastoralresources.php>>

24. A Generation at Risk, Rainbows.org, 29 Oct 2011 <<http://www.rainbows.org/statistics.html>>

25. Monroe, Edwin Price. The V-chip debate: content filtering from television to the Internet. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998)

26. Mackay, Jenn Burleson. Media bias: finding it, fixing it. (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc , 2007)

##### 2: A Little Background

1. Menton, Ham and Bodie Hodge. War of the World Views: Powerful Answers for an "Evolutionized Culture". (Green Forest: New Leaf Publishing Group, 2006)

##### 3: How Does One Prove Something to be True and Factual?

1. Relativism, Wikipedia.org, 20 Mar. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism/>>

2. Flat Earth, Wikipedia.org, 11 Nov. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth>>

3. The Flat Earth Society, TheFlatEarthSociety.org 11 Nov. 2011 <<http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/>>

4. Global Positioning System, 21 Oct. 2011. Wikipedia.org. 21 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System>>

5. Gravitation, Wikipedia.org, 20 Mar. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation>>

6. How the Scientific Method Works, Howstuffworks.com, 16 Nov. 2011 <<http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method10.htm>>

7. Aerodynamic Drag, Wikipedia.org, 21 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_drag>>

8. Scientific method, Wikipedia.org, 21 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>>

9. D'Onofrio, Mauro and Carlo Burigana(ed). Questions of Modern Cosmology: Galileo's Legacy. (Heidelberg: Springer, 2009)

10. Dirac, Paul. On methods in theoretical physics. (Trieste. June 1968.)

11. Williams, Alex and John Hartnett. Dismantling the Big Bang: God's Universe Rediscovered. (Green Forest: New Leaf Publishing Group, 2005.)

12. Big Bang, Wikipedia.org, 25 Aug. 2011. <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>>

13. Gibbs, W. Wayt. "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, (October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55)

14. Redshift, Wikipedia.org, 12 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift>>

15. Albrecht, Andreas and Joao Magueijo. A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles (Submitted on 2 Nov 1998 (v1), last revised 5 Jan 1999 (this version, v2))

16. "Faster than light particle found, claim scientists", Guardian.co.uk 24 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos>>

17. Second law of thermodynamics, Wikipedia.org, 18 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>>

18. Speed of light, Wikipedia.org, 24 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light>>

19. Trevor, Norman and Barry Setterfield. The Atomic Constants, Light and Time. (Adelaide: Flinders University of South Australia, School of Mathematical Sciences, Technical Report. 1987)

20. Nobel goes to scientist who knocked down 'Berlin Wall' of chemistry", cnn.com, 21 Oct. 2011 <<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/world/europe/sweden-nobel-chemistry/index.html>>

21. Hypothesis, Wikipedia.org, 16 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis>>

22. Theory, Wikipedia.org, 16 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>>

23. Chomsky, Noam. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002)

24. Sire, James. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (InterVarsity Press, 2004), 19.

25. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (referred to simply as "Origin of Species"), (Bantam Books, 1999)

26. "Science, evolution, and creationism" National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Institute of Medicine (U.S.), (Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2008)

27. Radiometric dating, Wikipedia.org, 14 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating>>

28. Carbon/Radiometric Dating, Oocities.org, 17 Aug. 2011 <<http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.html>>

29. Geologic time scale, 25 Jul. 2011. Wikipedia.org. 27 Jul. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column>>

30. Evolution, 13 Aug. 2011. Wikipedia.org. 15 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution>>

31. Uniformitarianism, Wikipedia.org, 20 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism>>

32. Fiore, Corina. Methods of Dating Fossils, 24 Aug. 2011 <<http://www.ehow.com/way_5422879_methods-dating-fossils.html>>

33. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Adler and Adler, 1985), 261

34. Cambrian explosion, Wikipedia.org, 25 Aug. 2011 34. <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion>>

35. Trilobite, Wikipedia.org, 26 Aug. 2011 <http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite#Eyes>

36. Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris. The Genesis Flood, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961) pp. 180-211

37. Fossil, 22 Jul. 2011. Wikipedia.org. 14 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_formation>>

38. Cretaceous, Wikipedia.org, 15 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous>>

39. Polystrate fossil, Wikipedia.org, 22 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil>>

40. Rupke, N.A. (see Morris, 1970, p. 102)

41. Ham, Ken. Did Adam Have a Belly Button?, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000)

42. Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997). Third edition.

43. Balogh, Rick. Does Fossilization Require Millions of Years?, 24 Aug. 2011 <<http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm>>

44. Trevor, Major. Genesis and the Origin of Coal & Oil, (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1996)

45. Fritz, William J. "Reinterpretation of the Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone Fossil Forest," Geology, 8[7]:309-313. 1980a

46. Fritz, William J. "Stumps Transported and Deposited Upright by Mount St. Helens Mud Flows," Geology, 8[12]:586-588. 1980b

47. Wysong, R.L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)

48. Bristlecone pine, Wikipedia.org, 23 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine>>

49. Coelecanth, Wikipedia.org, 23 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth>>

50. Wieland, C. "Sensational Australian tree ... like 'finding a live dinosaur.'", Creation 17(2):13. 1995

51. Patterson, Colin. Personal communication. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, 4th edition, 1988, 88-90.

52. Kitts, David B. "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467

53. Nilsson, Herbert. Synthetic Speciation, (North America: Evolution Protest Movement, 1973) p. 31

54. Adler, Jerry & Carey, John [journalists]. "Is Man a Subtle Accident?," Newsweek, November 3, 1980, pp.54-55, p.54

55. Raup, David M. "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science vol. 213, July 1981, p. 289.

56. Ancient Man Display Missing Links, Discovery News, 24 Aug. 2011 <<http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/AncientMan/The_Missing_Links_Display3.html>>

57. Humphreys, D. Russell. The Mystery of Earth's Magnetic Field, Institute for Creation Research, 25 Aug. 2011 <<http://www.icr.org/article/mystery-earths-magnetic-field/>>

58. Science Teachers speak from a Christian Worldview, 26 Aug. 2011 <<http://sites.google.com/site/sbusciencemethods/macroevolution>>

59. Abiogenesis, Wikipedia.org, 26 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis>>

60. Bellis, Mary. Robert Hooke (1635-1703), About.com, 27 Aug. 2011 <<http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blroberthooke.htm>>

61. Discovery of Cells and the Development of Cell Theory, SmithLifeScience.com, 12 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.smithlifescience.com/celltheory.htm>>

62. Wald, George. "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954

63. Marowitz, Harold. Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, 1968.

64. Crick, Francis. Life Itself - Its Origin and Nature, Futura, 1982.

65. DNA, Wikipedia.org, 12 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA>>

66. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Adler and Adler, 1985), 338

67. Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson. Evolutionary Theories On Gender And Sexual Reproduction, Trueorigin.org, 14 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp>>

68. Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, (Simon & Schuster, 1996), 39

69. Evolution of Flagella, Wikipedia.org, 14 Sept. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella>>

70. Richards, Lawrence O. It Couldn't Just Happen, (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1989), pp.139-140.

71. Missler and Eastman. The Creator Beyond Time and Space, (Word for Today, 1995), 80.

72. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, (Bantam Books, 1999), 158.

73. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. "Species Selection: Its Range and Power", Nature, Vol 334, Issue 6177, pp. 19 (1998)

74. Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne. in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971: 14.

##### 4: Does God Exist and Can We Prove It?

1. Creationism, Wikipedia.org, 16 Sep. 2011 <http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>

2. "Time travel". 8 Sep. 2011. Wikipedia.org, 18 Sep. 2011 <http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel>

3. "Parallax", Wikipedia.org, 18 Sep. 2011 <http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Distance_measurement_in_astronomy>

4. "Distance measures (cosmology)", Wikipedia.org, 19 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_%28cosmology%29>>

5. "Redshift", Wikipedia.org, 12 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift>>

6. "Doppler effect", Wikipedia.org, 20 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>>

7. "Second law of thermodynamics", Wikipedia.org, 18 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>>

8. IAP Member Academies, "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, 21 June 2006, The Global Network of Science Academies, 20 Sep. 2011. <<http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx>>

##### 5: The Bible - A Hyper-dimensional Document

1. Cristianity, Wikipedia.org, 23 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity>>

2. Bible, Wikipedia.org, 23 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible>>

3. Alexander, David and Pat Alexander, Zondervan Handbook to the Bible, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 64-65

4. White, Wes. How was the Old Testament Preserved?, Biblestudy.org, 21 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-old-testament-preserved.html>>

5. Brantley, Garry K. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity, ApologeticsPress.org, 21 Sep. 2011 <http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357>

6. New Testament, Wikipedia.org, 22 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament>>

7. Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th rev. ed., (Intervarsity Press. 1960): 21-28.

8. Design, Dictionary.com, 22 Sep. 2011 <<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design>>

9. Chaos, Dictionary.com, 22 Sep. 2011 <<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos>>

10. About Bible Codes: Medieval Beginnings, BibleCodeDigest.com, 24 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=24>>

11. Isaac Newton's religious views, Wikipedia.org, 25 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views>>

12. Ivan Panin, Wikipedia.org, 25 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Panin>>

13. "Ivan Panin: Russia's Gift to Christianity", 26 Sep. 2011 <<http://kotisivu.lumonetti.fi/esa08/ivan-panin-e.html>>

14. Bible Numerics Examined, 26 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1363.cfm>>

15. Panin, Ivan. The Number Seven, 27 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.1john57.com/number7.htm>>

16. Computer Analysis and Proofs That God, The Creator of all things, did write the 66 books of the Holy Bible. USA-the-republic.com, 27 Sep. 2011 <<http://usa-the-republic.com/religion/bible.html>>

17. Bible code, Wikipedia.org, 27 Sep. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code>>

18. Missler, Chuck. Beloved Numerologist, JoshuaNet, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.joshuanet.org/articles/missler/numerol.htm>>

19. Missler, Chuck. The Gospel in Genesis, Koinonia House, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/>>

20. Kirkpatrick, George. The Types and Symbols of the Bible, NewFoundation Ministries, 26 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/types.htm>>

21. Aharon Shak, Moshe. The 296-Letter-Long Shimon Peres Code, BibleCodeDigest.com, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=386>>

22. Aharon Shak, Moshe. 147-Letter-Long Mel Gibson ELS Discovered, BibleCodeDigest.com, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=236>>

23. New Evidence Overturns Skeptics' Case, BibleCodeDigest.com, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=9>>

24. Ross, Hugh. Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible, Reasons to Believe, 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible>>

25. Isaiah (Yeshayahu), 28 Sep. 2011 <<http://chelm.freeyellow.com/page13.html>>

26. Pytlik, George. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Deliver us from Evil – Time Television, 29 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/timetv-02.html>>

27. Ben Israel, Gideon. A Jewish Calculation about the 70 weeks of Daniel, 29 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/jewc70da.htm>>

28. 365 Messianic Prophecies, Bible Probe, 29 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm>>

29. McDowell, Josh. Evidence for the Resurrection, Leadership University, 30 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html>>

30. Big Bang, Wikipedia.org, 25 Aug. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>>

31. Theories of Formation for the Moon, 30 Sep. 2011 <<http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html>>

32. Wallace, David. The Quantization of Gravity – an introduction, Centre for Quantum Computation, 30 Sep. 2011 <<http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~wongjian/qg.pdf>>

33. Than, Ker. Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth, LiveScience.com 30 Sep. 2011 <<http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html>>

34. 22-degree Halo, Wikipedia.org, 2 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/22%C2%B0_halo>>

35. Atmospheric Experiments, Genesis Park, 2 Oct. 2011 <http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/experiments/>

36. Bridges, Andrew. Earth's magnetic field weakening, Associated Press, 2 Oct. 2011 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3693932/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earths-magnetic-field-weakening/#.TratPrJe4cw>

37. Diamagnetic Water, 3 Oct. 2011 <<http://www.otherpower.com/diamagh2o.html>>

38. Inverse-square law, Wikipedia.org, 4 Oct. 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law>>

39. Ozone, Wikipedia.org, 3 Oct 2011 <<http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone>>

40. Air Bubbles, Amber, and Dinosaurs, USGS.gov, 3 Oct 2011 <<http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html>>

41. Latham, Emi. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, Medscape Reference, 3 Oct. 2011 <<http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1464149-overview>>

42. Nazario, Brunilda. Cosmetic Procedures: Sun Exposure and Skin Cancer, WebMD, 29 Oct. 2011 <<http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/guide/sun-exposure-skin-cancer>>

