Hi Dr. Ferdinand, I just found your substack yesterday through a repost by WM Briggs, and have been reading over it. I don't know if you still respond to comments on old posts like this, but I really enjoyed your series picking apart Darwinism, as that's right up my area of interest as well.
I've come to the same conclusion you have with respect to "natural selection," namely that it's simply an incoherent concept and doesn't describe anything that exists at all. One complaint I have with most ID proponents is that they don't go far enough. They typically frame the discussion as a question of the "limits" of natural selection, when the fundamental problem is that there's no such thing in the first place. The entire Darwinian framing is just sophistry from top to bottom, not EVEN wrong as the idiom goes.
As I pointed out there, natural selection is supposed to be a physical mechanistic explanation, yet it provides ZERO physical information about how ANY biological feature came about. Darwinists will attribute eyes, and bacterial flagella, and immune systems, etc to "natural selection," but this provides no insight into how each of these things came into being PHYSICALLY, and indeed it cannot do so in principle because all of those features are radically different from each other from a physical standpoint, and so could not have possibly come about by the same physical causes or mechanisms.
So what do eyes, flagella, immune systems, and every other biological feature of interest have in common that Darwinists are trying to explain by invoking natural selection if it's not anything physical? The answer, of course, is that these biological features all have function or purpose. Indeed, they are all DEFINED by their function or purpose. Darwinists are seeking to "explain" this function or purpose by inviting us to conceptualize "natural selection" as a designing agent who has purposes and intentions.
Note, by the way, that Darwinists are offering the exact same kind of "God of the gaps" argument they attack proponents of real design of making: They are invoking a designing agent with intentions in lieu of having a physical, material explanation. They will insist that they are not doing this, on the grounds that "natural selection" is "officially" not actually a designing agent but a blind and mechanistic physical process. But this doesn't mean that invoking "natural selection" to account for biological function and purpose is actually a physical explanation after all (Again, it can't be, since it provides ZERO physical information), it just means that it's incoherent and so not an explanation at all.
If it's not actually a designing agent with a mind and intentions, then the purpose and function it was invoked to explain cannot be objectively real either, which means that the biological features it was invoked to explain (which are each DEFINED by their function or purpose) are not objectively real either, but just a subjective projection of our minds. Since we are biological creatures and our minds are also features defined by their purpose, this ultimately results in the nonsensical and circular conclusion that we exist only as subjective illusions we are having of ourselves.
Thanks great comment and insights. 100% agree with you about 'natural selection'. Another empty word devoid of 'science'. As you said, it explains nothing. At best it could be used to propose the idea of culling, or killing off the weak and sick. Wolves for example will hunt down the young, the sick, the old, or the straggling. Lions and other large predators tend to do the same. Strong eating the weak.
Thanks for the link, will read your document which looks to be very well researched and built. I saw this.
"The basic premise of Darwinian explanation is quite simple, and goes like this: “Blind natural processes can select for some traits to survive in future generations while weeding out others, in a way that is analogous to how human breeders deliberately select some traits to breed while weeding out others. Breeding by humans is a type of design, and design produces function. Thus, given enough time, this natural selection produces all the biological function we see, much how the selection of human designers produces function.”
That is a good summary of what Darwin et al preach. Darwin the pigeon and orchid breeder applying Victorian breeding to nature. But as you said, this does not happen in nature by random chance or 'mutations'. Mutations are negative or at best neutral. Genomic structures are clearly software systems, and do not by themselves, acquire new code or functionality. The programmer or designer adds this.
Next year I am going to post a lot about the fraud of Evolution given how central it is to the narrative from the Church of 'the science'. It is as bad or worse than the mythology of Relativity and the Big Bang. I have read a lot of ID proponents and you are right, they stop way short of the obvious conclusions. Many are long agers as well, a few accept 'evolution' up to some fictitious point. Very weak one can say.
****"Mutations are negative or at best neutral. Genomic structures are clearly software systems, and do not by themselves, acquire new code or functionality. The programmer or designer adds this."****
Yes, the Darwinian idea of "beneficial" mutations "adding up" to new biological function depends on conflating a variation being "beneficial" in an organism's current environment with it being beneficial towards the building of some as-yet-unrealized future function. And as with everything in Darwinism, this conflation depends on conceiving of "natural selection" as an agent with a mind and intentions, and only seems to make sense because of that.
But in fact these two things are entirely unrelated. A mutation being beneficial in the immediate environment makes it no more likely to be beneficial towards the building of some future function than its being neutral or deleterious. In fact, most beneficial mutations are beneficial because they diminish or even destroy existing biological function that has become a liability in the current environment.
For instance, cave fish lost their eyes and polar bears lost their ability to produce fur melanin, because the destruction of that function was beneficial in their environments. There are effectively infinitely more ways to break something than to build it.
But, I think it bears pointing out, biological function is actually of a higher order than the function of human-designed artifacts, so that EVEN IF "natural selection" had the powers of human breeders, it could not in principle produce biological function, just as human breeders have never produced biological function, but only highjacked it for their own purposes. I go into that in more detail in my treatise, but here's a shorter comment where I illustrate why this is using a thought experiment about trying to add an eye to an organism with a light-sensitive spot via genetic engineering: https://scifiwright.com/2025/09/fine-tuning-the-fine-tuning-argument-2/#comment-6776081482
Makes sense, totally agree. I am still trying to work out how the bear, wolf, deer or hippo (Darwinists have used all 4) became the whale....(through 'natural selection', 'mutations', 'time' and other magic).
"EVEN IF "natural selection" had the powers of human breeders, it could not in principle produce biological function, just as human breeders have never produced biological function,"
100% spot on. Genomic software is incredibly intricate. As you say, the 'functionality' does not arise by a simple 'shuffling' of genes. There has to be a design or a reason to generate that targeted functionality.
Genomic software is incredibly intricate, but I actually don't think that most of our biological form and function is encoded in our physical genome.
There are, I think, a number of ways to illustrate that fact, from the smallest bacterium up to human beings.
For instance, you pointed out yourself just how incredibly complex and sophisticated our brains are. Around 80 billion neurons, each neuron connected to around 7 nodes on average. And this isn't haphazard. Our brains wouldn't work if all this complexity weren't put together just right. And of course our brains would be useless on their own. They have many billions more intricate connections to every other part of our body, none of which would work if these connections were not put together just right.
And THEN consider that the complexity of our brains and all their connections do not consist merely of the adult form. In order for us to have working brains, our brains and their connections in all their unfathomable intricacy have to build themselves from a single-celled zygote reliably, robustly, and repeatedly in each generation. And then on top of THAT, recent research has shown that developing embryos are capable of responding to and routing around obstacles to their development in novel ways that could not have been preprogrammed through evolutionary history in order to reach their goals, in a manner that appears to transcend computation (See here: https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/new-article-calls-for-a-philosophical-revolution-in-biology-placing-mind-over-matter/).
And so far I'm ONLY looking at the brain and its nerve connections to the rest of the body. There are of course many, many other functional integrated structures throughout the human body to which all of these same considerations apply.
And then consider that our DNA contains a mere 3.5 billion base pairs. It appears to be obvious that the information needed to specify a human being's adult form and its development process outstrips what could possibly be encoded in the DNA molecule by MANY orders of magnitude.
Or consider this: A hog-nosed bat and a blue whale are both mammals. This means among other things that they both have mammary glands by which they feed their young, a trait assumed to have been inherited in both from a common mammalian ancestor.
Yet a blue whale's body contains several hundred trillion cells, and a hog-nosed bat's perhaps a few hundred billion. A whale's mammary glands almost certainly contain trillions more cells than a hog-nosed bat's entire body. Additionally, they are adapted very differently, the whale's for feeding underwater and the bat for feeding while hanging upside down in the air, and these adaptations are extensive and involve many other corresponding integrated adaptations.
It is clear, then, that while the bat's mammary gland and the whale's mammary gland are CONCEPTUALLY the same thing, as they perform the same function, they are PHYSICALLY vastly different things. And now consider that "natural selection" is supposed to be a purely physical process, not an agent with concepts.
And as is the case with human features, recall that the mammary glands of both hog-nosed bats and blue whales consist not only of their adult forms, but also the *developmental process* by which the adult forms are self-assembled repeatedly and reliably built from a single-celled zygote.
Now, DNA is commonly referred to as the "program" or "blueprint" by which organisms are built, but as a computer guy, it's probably very obvious on reflection that no single program could possibly build two such radically different structures. Or if it could, such a program would require foresight well beyond human comprehension.
It should be clear that however hog-nosed bats and blue whales came to both have mammary glands, it is NOT via simply inheriting a shared program encoded in shared DNA.
These considerations don't just apply to multicellular life, either. Consider this video by James Tour on problems facing abiogenesis, and in particular this part where he discusses the interactome: https://youtu.be/sWJEwv14NKU?t=255
As he points out, it's not enough to have all the biopolymers of a cell inside a cell wall. They have to all *interact* with each other in the right way. In a yeast cell, the interactome combinations between proteins alone is around 10 to the power of 79 billion. A cell that loses its interactome (such as when being dehydrated and rehydrated, as James points out) cannot have it put back in working order, even though all the cellular components are there.
Again, it's clear that the information necessary to specify a cell's working interactome is greater than the information capacity of DNA by many orders of magnitude. Yet, it must be correct for a cell to work, and it is somehow passed on intact from cell to cell during reproduction.
Further, as Dr. Tour has pointed out, we don't know how to bring back to life a single-celled organism that has just died. Even having all the right parts in the right place isn't enough for there to be a living cell. The parts have to be *working*, and the only way to get a working cell is to have an already working cell.
Or consider that DNA doesn't actually code for ANYTHING in and of itself. It's just an inert molecule that will break down on its own. It only codes for something in the context of being an integrated part of an already-existing living organism that can INTERPRET it to code for something. And there are tight limits here. If you put human DNA in a frog zygote, the frog zygote won't interpret that DNA to build a human being. It will just die.
So if DNA isn't actually a "blueprint," "instruction manual," or "computer program" that builds us, then what is it? If we're going to stick to computer programming analogies, I think the closest analogue to what DNA is is a *configuration file*.
I think that an organism's essence (its *substantial form* or its set of functions/natural ends - that by virtue of which it is the type of thing it is) is not encoded in DNA *or in any other purely material intermediary*, nor could it be in principle. Attempts to quantify all the aspects of an organism's form that must be passed on in order for it to reproduce quickly outstrip what could possibly be encoded in any physical medium.
Rather, an organism's essence is passed on *directly* in a way that cannot be quantified or computed. The organism's DNA then acts as a sort of configuration file that the organism consults as it develops and builds itself, making it unique to its species. While the DNA doesn't *specify* the organism's developmental program, it must be *compatible* with it for the organism to live, similarly to how Adobe Reader will crash if you swap the contents of its configuration files with those of Microsoft Word (with the major difference that those two applications are of course physically encoded programs themselves).
Good question. I am not clever enough to really know about the OOL. In my opinion only a creator of intelligence can make such perfection and design. I don't see how anyone can avoid that reality. For every creature flora or fauna, the entire design is all or nothing, eg - heart, blood, veins and arteries, or roots, trunk, branches, leaves. They all must 'arrive' at once. That is what the facts tell me personally. Darwinism cannot explain the arrival of species and transitions or links simply don't exist. Adaptation or oscillations within the existing code we have is not evolution. Adapting is a reaction (epi-genetic) to changing environments or circumstances. Chemical evolution or chemicals + electricity do not generate life, its code, design or complexity.
I so would love for intelligent design to be true. I would have a hard time trying to explain that, or even Darwinism. Don't laff, but what do you think is the shape of Earth?
Antony Flew the famous atheist after studying DNA came to the conclusion that a deity or creator intelligence must exist. I think the facts point ineluctably to intelligent creation. I can't see random variation producing anything. Re the shape of the Earth, from what I can see, it is an oblate slightly flattened sphere. Perfect size, shape, tilt and rotation for life with a 12 layered atmosphere - again a perfect design. I have tried to find mechanical proof the Earth's movement in space and its dirunal rotation but they are hard to come by.
Thank you for the great feedback. Have you calculated the maximum arc height on a straight line from the Nile‘s source at Lake Victoria to its mouth at the Med? On a radius of 6, 371 kms, its a whopping 401 kms approximately. However, Lake Victoria is only 1.13 kms in altitude.
I need to read up more on our origin story so thank you for your terrific writing.
Great thanks for the comment, much appreciated. I am glad you are sharing the information and that people are open to changing their minds. I too at one point believed in the moon landings, evolution and was indifferent to 'vaccines'. Needless to say I have flipped 180 degrees and with the zealotry of the converted I can honestly say I was wrong in so many areas of my previous life distorted as it was by secular world views. It is not easy having your world views exploded. Kudos to your mother. God bless her at age 90. A long life full of experience and she is right of course - 1960s tech could never take us through the Van Allen radiation belts on a 500K mile voyage there and back.
Hi Dr. Ferdinand, I just found your substack yesterday through a repost by WM Briggs, and have been reading over it. I don't know if you still respond to comments on old posts like this, but I really enjoyed your series picking apart Darwinism, as that's right up my area of interest as well.
I've come to the same conclusion you have with respect to "natural selection," namely that it's simply an incoherent concept and doesn't describe anything that exists at all. One complaint I have with most ID proponents is that they don't go far enough. They typically frame the discussion as a question of the "limits" of natural selection, when the fundamental problem is that there's no such thing in the first place. The entire Darwinian framing is just sophistry from top to bottom, not EVEN wrong as the idiom goes.
My own reasons for concluding this are in a comment I made to John C Wright's blog, which he reprinted as a guest post here: https://scifiwright.com/2025/09/empirical-and-metaphysical-darwinism/
As I pointed out there, natural selection is supposed to be a physical mechanistic explanation, yet it provides ZERO physical information about how ANY biological feature came about. Darwinists will attribute eyes, and bacterial flagella, and immune systems, etc to "natural selection," but this provides no insight into how each of these things came into being PHYSICALLY, and indeed it cannot do so in principle because all of those features are radically different from each other from a physical standpoint, and so could not have possibly come about by the same physical causes or mechanisms.
So what do eyes, flagella, immune systems, and every other biological feature of interest have in common that Darwinists are trying to explain by invoking natural selection if it's not anything physical? The answer, of course, is that these biological features all have function or purpose. Indeed, they are all DEFINED by their function or purpose. Darwinists are seeking to "explain" this function or purpose by inviting us to conceptualize "natural selection" as a designing agent who has purposes and intentions.
Note, by the way, that Darwinists are offering the exact same kind of "God of the gaps" argument they attack proponents of real design of making: They are invoking a designing agent with intentions in lieu of having a physical, material explanation. They will insist that they are not doing this, on the grounds that "natural selection" is "officially" not actually a designing agent but a blind and mechanistic physical process. But this doesn't mean that invoking "natural selection" to account for biological function and purpose is actually a physical explanation after all (Again, it can't be, since it provides ZERO physical information), it just means that it's incoherent and so not an explanation at all.
If it's not actually a designing agent with a mind and intentions, then the purpose and function it was invoked to explain cannot be objectively real either, which means that the biological features it was invoked to explain (which are each DEFINED by their function or purpose) are not objectively real either, but just a subjective projection of our minds. Since we are biological creatures and our minds are also features defined by their purpose, this ultimately results in the nonsensical and circular conclusion that we exist only as subjective illusions we are having of ourselves.
Btw, several months ago I wrote my own long treatise on this topic to organize my thoughts, which you might find of interest too: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q2dOFImFS8_VEUloiSyx17tMSCAda_Io7Dkm--6BX2s/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks great comment and insights. 100% agree with you about 'natural selection'. Another empty word devoid of 'science'. As you said, it explains nothing. At best it could be used to propose the idea of culling, or killing off the weak and sick. Wolves for example will hunt down the young, the sick, the old, or the straggling. Lions and other large predators tend to do the same. Strong eating the weak.
Thanks for the link, will read your document which looks to be very well researched and built. I saw this.
"The basic premise of Darwinian explanation is quite simple, and goes like this: “Blind natural processes can select for some traits to survive in future generations while weeding out others, in a way that is analogous to how human breeders deliberately select some traits to breed while weeding out others. Breeding by humans is a type of design, and design produces function. Thus, given enough time, this natural selection produces all the biological function we see, much how the selection of human designers produces function.”
That is a good summary of what Darwin et al preach. Darwin the pigeon and orchid breeder applying Victorian breeding to nature. But as you said, this does not happen in nature by random chance or 'mutations'. Mutations are negative or at best neutral. Genomic structures are clearly software systems, and do not by themselves, acquire new code or functionality. The programmer or designer adds this.
Next year I am going to post a lot about the fraud of Evolution given how central it is to the narrative from the Church of 'the science'. It is as bad or worse than the mythology of Relativity and the Big Bang. I have read a lot of ID proponents and you are right, they stop way short of the obvious conclusions. Many are long agers as well, a few accept 'evolution' up to some fictitious point. Very weak one can say.
****"Mutations are negative or at best neutral. Genomic structures are clearly software systems, and do not by themselves, acquire new code or functionality. The programmer or designer adds this."****
Yes, the Darwinian idea of "beneficial" mutations "adding up" to new biological function depends on conflating a variation being "beneficial" in an organism's current environment with it being beneficial towards the building of some as-yet-unrealized future function. And as with everything in Darwinism, this conflation depends on conceiving of "natural selection" as an agent with a mind and intentions, and only seems to make sense because of that.
But in fact these two things are entirely unrelated. A mutation being beneficial in the immediate environment makes it no more likely to be beneficial towards the building of some future function than its being neutral or deleterious. In fact, most beneficial mutations are beneficial because they diminish or even destroy existing biological function that has become a liability in the current environment.
For instance, cave fish lost their eyes and polar bears lost their ability to produce fur melanin, because the destruction of that function was beneficial in their environments. There are effectively infinitely more ways to break something than to build it.
But, I think it bears pointing out, biological function is actually of a higher order than the function of human-designed artifacts, so that EVEN IF "natural selection" had the powers of human breeders, it could not in principle produce biological function, just as human breeders have never produced biological function, but only highjacked it for their own purposes. I go into that in more detail in my treatise, but here's a shorter comment where I illustrate why this is using a thought experiment about trying to add an eye to an organism with a light-sensitive spot via genetic engineering: https://scifiwright.com/2025/09/fine-tuning-the-fine-tuning-argument-2/#comment-6776081482
Makes sense, totally agree. I am still trying to work out how the bear, wolf, deer or hippo (Darwinists have used all 4) became the whale....(through 'natural selection', 'mutations', 'time' and other magic).
"EVEN IF "natural selection" had the powers of human breeders, it could not in principle produce biological function, just as human breeders have never produced biological function,"
100% spot on. Genomic software is incredibly intricate. As you say, the 'functionality' does not arise by a simple 'shuffling' of genes. There has to be a design or a reason to generate that targeted functionality.
Genomic software is incredibly intricate, but I actually don't think that most of our biological form and function is encoded in our physical genome.
There are, I think, a number of ways to illustrate that fact, from the smallest bacterium up to human beings.
For instance, you pointed out yourself just how incredibly complex and sophisticated our brains are. Around 80 billion neurons, each neuron connected to around 7 nodes on average. And this isn't haphazard. Our brains wouldn't work if all this complexity weren't put together just right. And of course our brains would be useless on their own. They have many billions more intricate connections to every other part of our body, none of which would work if these connections were not put together just right.
And THEN consider that the complexity of our brains and all their connections do not consist merely of the adult form. In order for us to have working brains, our brains and their connections in all their unfathomable intricacy have to build themselves from a single-celled zygote reliably, robustly, and repeatedly in each generation. And then on top of THAT, recent research has shown that developing embryos are capable of responding to and routing around obstacles to their development in novel ways that could not have been preprogrammed through evolutionary history in order to reach their goals, in a manner that appears to transcend computation (See here: https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/new-article-calls-for-a-philosophical-revolution-in-biology-placing-mind-over-matter/).
And so far I'm ONLY looking at the brain and its nerve connections to the rest of the body. There are of course many, many other functional integrated structures throughout the human body to which all of these same considerations apply.
And then consider that our DNA contains a mere 3.5 billion base pairs. It appears to be obvious that the information needed to specify a human being's adult form and its development process outstrips what could possibly be encoded in the DNA molecule by MANY orders of magnitude.
Or consider this: A hog-nosed bat and a blue whale are both mammals. This means among other things that they both have mammary glands by which they feed their young, a trait assumed to have been inherited in both from a common mammalian ancestor.
Yet a blue whale's body contains several hundred trillion cells, and a hog-nosed bat's perhaps a few hundred billion. A whale's mammary glands almost certainly contain trillions more cells than a hog-nosed bat's entire body. Additionally, they are adapted very differently, the whale's for feeding underwater and the bat for feeding while hanging upside down in the air, and these adaptations are extensive and involve many other corresponding integrated adaptations.
It is clear, then, that while the bat's mammary gland and the whale's mammary gland are CONCEPTUALLY the same thing, as they perform the same function, they are PHYSICALLY vastly different things. And now consider that "natural selection" is supposed to be a purely physical process, not an agent with concepts.
And as is the case with human features, recall that the mammary glands of both hog-nosed bats and blue whales consist not only of their adult forms, but also the *developmental process* by which the adult forms are self-assembled repeatedly and reliably built from a single-celled zygote.
Now, DNA is commonly referred to as the "program" or "blueprint" by which organisms are built, but as a computer guy, it's probably very obvious on reflection that no single program could possibly build two such radically different structures. Or if it could, such a program would require foresight well beyond human comprehension.
It should be clear that however hog-nosed bats and blue whales came to both have mammary glands, it is NOT via simply inheriting a shared program encoded in shared DNA.
These considerations don't just apply to multicellular life, either. Consider this video by James Tour on problems facing abiogenesis, and in particular this part where he discusses the interactome: https://youtu.be/sWJEwv14NKU?t=255
As he points out, it's not enough to have all the biopolymers of a cell inside a cell wall. They have to all *interact* with each other in the right way. In a yeast cell, the interactome combinations between proteins alone is around 10 to the power of 79 billion. A cell that loses its interactome (such as when being dehydrated and rehydrated, as James points out) cannot have it put back in working order, even though all the cellular components are there.
Again, it's clear that the information necessary to specify a cell's working interactome is greater than the information capacity of DNA by many orders of magnitude. Yet, it must be correct for a cell to work, and it is somehow passed on intact from cell to cell during reproduction.
Further, as Dr. Tour has pointed out, we don't know how to bring back to life a single-celled organism that has just died. Even having all the right parts in the right place isn't enough for there to be a living cell. The parts have to be *working*, and the only way to get a working cell is to have an already working cell.
Or consider that DNA doesn't actually code for ANYTHING in and of itself. It's just an inert molecule that will break down on its own. It only codes for something in the context of being an integrated part of an already-existing living organism that can INTERPRET it to code for something. And there are tight limits here. If you put human DNA in a frog zygote, the frog zygote won't interpret that DNA to build a human being. It will just die.
So if DNA isn't actually a "blueprint," "instruction manual," or "computer program" that builds us, then what is it? If we're going to stick to computer programming analogies, I think the closest analogue to what DNA is is a *configuration file*.
I think that an organism's essence (its *substantial form* or its set of functions/natural ends - that by virtue of which it is the type of thing it is) is not encoded in DNA *or in any other purely material intermediary*, nor could it be in principle. Attempts to quantify all the aspects of an organism's form that must be passed on in order for it to reproduce quickly outstrip what could possibly be encoded in any physical medium.
Rather, an organism's essence is passed on *directly* in a way that cannot be quantified or computed. The organism's DNA then acts as a sort of configuration file that the organism consults as it develops and builds itself, making it unique to its species. While the DNA doesn't *specify* the organism's developmental program, it must be *compatible* with it for the organism to live, similarly to how Adobe Reader will crash if you swap the contents of its configuration files with those of Microsoft Word (with the major difference that those two applications are of course physically encoded programs themselves).
A recent book that has helped jog my thinking on these issues is Richard Sternberg's Plato's Revenge: https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/platos-revenge-mathematical-biologist-richard-sternberg-foresaw-major-developments-in-biology/
Great critique of Darwinism. What do you consider the most compelling explanation for the origins of life?
Good question. I am not clever enough to really know about the OOL. In my opinion only a creator of intelligence can make such perfection and design. I don't see how anyone can avoid that reality. For every creature flora or fauna, the entire design is all or nothing, eg - heart, blood, veins and arteries, or roots, trunk, branches, leaves. They all must 'arrive' at once. That is what the facts tell me personally. Darwinism cannot explain the arrival of species and transitions or links simply don't exist. Adaptation or oscillations within the existing code we have is not evolution. Adapting is a reaction (epi-genetic) to changing environments or circumstances. Chemical evolution or chemicals + electricity do not generate life, its code, design or complexity.
I so would love for intelligent design to be true. I would have a hard time trying to explain that, or even Darwinism. Don't laff, but what do you think is the shape of Earth?
Antony Flew the famous atheist after studying DNA came to the conclusion that a deity or creator intelligence must exist. I think the facts point ineluctably to intelligent creation. I can't see random variation producing anything. Re the shape of the Earth, from what I can see, it is an oblate slightly flattened sphere. Perfect size, shape, tilt and rotation for life with a 12 layered atmosphere - again a perfect design. I have tried to find mechanical proof the Earth's movement in space and its dirunal rotation but they are hard to come by.
Thank you for the great feedback. Have you calculated the maximum arc height on a straight line from the Nile‘s source at Lake Victoria to its mouth at the Med? On a radius of 6, 371 kms, its a whopping 401 kms approximately. However, Lake Victoria is only 1.13 kms in altitude.
I need to read up more on our origin story so thank you for your terrific writing.
How‘s your math?
Great thanks for the comment, much appreciated. I am glad you are sharing the information and that people are open to changing their minds. I too at one point believed in the moon landings, evolution and was indifferent to 'vaccines'. Needless to say I have flipped 180 degrees and with the zealotry of the converted I can honestly say I was wrong in so many areas of my previous life distorted as it was by secular world views. It is not easy having your world views exploded. Kudos to your mother. God bless her at age 90. A long life full of experience and she is right of course - 1960s tech could never take us through the Van Allen radiation belts on a 500K mile voyage there and back.