Your Faith: In God or Materialism?

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,...And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Hebrews 11:3/Colossians 1:16,17

"Theoretical physicist and Nobellist Steven Weinberg said, “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” 

His quip was intended to take aim at God. Nevertheless, even atheists acknowledge the existence of many realities that cannot be directly observed—such as black holes, magnetism, gravitation, and wind.

--However, atheists agree that they are known from their effects. 

--We could say the same about God and His creative acts, and—for those of us who were not around to witness it—the Resurrection of Jesus. We cannot see such things today, but they have impacted the world in ways that are visible and measurable.

After all, if science can deal only with matter and energy, it can’t possibly show that other things can’t exist. Rather, this claimed requirement is a philosophical position called materialism, and there are substantial grounds for doubting it. 

‘Materialism’ in philosophy doesn’t mean striving for material goods, but the belief that matter (or mass/energy) is all there is.
Among the reasons for rejecting materialism are the compelling arguments that support the existence of an immaterial Creator of the universe. 

These include the design of living things, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the evidence that it has a finite age, among other arguments." 

CMI

Tuff stuff at the Morrison Formation

"At Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, a confused tangle of bones juts from a ridge of sandstone, chock-full of dinosaur fossils. The sandstone is part of the Morrison Formation, a body of sedimentary rock extending from New Mexico to Saskatchewan in the north and covering more than 400,000 square miles of the western U.S. and Canada. 

Eleven different species of dinosaur have been dug from the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, including one of the largest and most complete skeletons of a giant Apatosaurus ever found.

The dinosaur bones are concentrated in an extensive lens-shaped bed

of rock and are an outstanding example of a ‘mass burial’ deposit.
Having abandoned a peaceful interpretation for Dinosaur National Monument, yet committed to rejecting the historical Flood recorded in the Bible, uniformitarian geologists stayed true to their worldview and retained an interpretation that needed millions of years of slow deposition. 

*They now say that the dinosaurs were overwhelmed and buried by a series of floods. Not by the global Flood of Noah, but by much smaller local floods separated by long time periods. 

*They believe that every time an area flooded, the dinosaur remains were deposited in the same location, slowly building up the sizable collection. 

*Alternatively, some scientists speculate that the fossils represent the cumulative result of many droughts as the dinosaurs congregated and died around ever-diminishing waterholes. But this scenario also requires flooding to try to explain the subsequent burial.

However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called ‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the formation, indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at
much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic event.

Also, if millions of years had indeed gone by as the uniformitarians assert, the geomorphology or ‘shape’ of the land surface would have changed in all that time. We know that rivers can alter their position and shape over the centuries, as their banks are eroded and sediment is deposited. 

***For the multiple-flood/multiple-drought scenarios to be true it

would mean that the drainage pattern over a very wide area would remain unchanged over eons of time, such that animal remains were accumulated in exactly the same location over and over again. This is unlikely.

--Added to this, the fact that fossilization occurred at all indicates that the animals were quickly and deeply buried in sediment infused with mineral-rich fluids, either during death or not long afterwards. 

--The bodies of dinosaurs that had drowned in localized floods would be scavenged and rot, bones and all, long before a sufficient thickness of sediment had covered them. 

--After all, we do not today find the accumulated bones of herd animals such as cattle slowly fossilizing under the mud of river banks and floodplains emplaced by local floods. We do not even find small animals fossilizing. Fossilization today is a rare event, requiring special conditions.

The evidence gets even more problematic for uniformitarians. Some of the fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are found as nearly-complete skeletons, fully articulated, and still in the opisthotonic or ‘dead dinosaur’ posture. Others are found in a disarticulated (dismembered) state. The presence of near-perfect whole remains further detracts from the long-ages multiple-flood theory, as the chance of unfossilized dinosaur skeletons surviving in articulated condition over eons of time, while awaiting deep burial, is vanishingly small. Soft connective tissue joining bone to bone rapidly breaks down once rotting of the carcass begins.

The evidence indicates that the dinosaur remains were quickly and deeply entombed in sediments deposited by water. 

It is highly unlikely that either the multiple-flood or the multiple-drought interpretation would result in dinosaurs being fossilized in rock as we find them at Dinosaur National Monument. 

On the other hand, a global-scale flood, such as the Flood of Noah recorded in the book of Genesis, with its associated volcanic activity, is a likely candidate." CMI

There were giants in the earth in those days;

Genesis 6:4

...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.

Genesis 7:11

Another Evolutionary Theory

There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins), Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution (Gould), Panspermia (Sagan), A 3rd Way (Wagner), Evo Devo (DeBeers), sort of a back-to-the-drawing board (Mazur) and now Assembly Theory (Cronin).

"Assembly Theory:
Q: So, what is Assembly Theory? 

A: Evidently, it can be confusing to understand since Tour himself initially had a hard time understanding it, as did a number of other scientists. 

Computer scientist and logic expert, Hector Zenil, for example, argues strongly that Leroy Cronin’s Assembly Theory is nothing more than a “dictionary-based compression algorithm” that is commonly used by computer algorithms to compress files – specifically the LZ77 compression algorithm. 

Basically, Assembly Theory is simply determining the “complexity” of a system in very much the same way as has historically already been done in computer science – by “Combining the power of Shannon Information/Entropy and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity by way of Solomonoff-Levin Probability” . The problem is that none of these measures of “complexity” is a measure of meaningful or functional complexity.

Q: So, is it really true that Assembly Theory is nothing more than a compression algorithm? 

A: Evidently, it can be confusing to understand since Tour himself initially had a hard time understanding it, as did a number of other scientists. 

Computer scientist and logic expert, Hector Zenil, for example, argues strongly that Leroy Cronin’s Assembly Theory is nothing more than a “dictionary-based compression algorithm” that is commonly used

For example, say that there’s a string of AAAAA… measuring 1,000 characters in length. A compression algorithm could simply code for this with a much shorter sequence by saying “Print A 1000 times”. Such a high level of compressibility for this strong of As means that it has low “complexity”.

Q: So, is it really true that Assembly Theory is nothing more than a compression algorithm? 

A:  Well, Onsi Fakhouri, an astrophysics researcher and tech executive, has an interesting take on this. In his discussion with James Tour, he noted that while Assembly Theory is a compression algorithm, it also adds the additional element of “selection” – the need for a “selector” to explain a given system or arrangement of building blocks (be it a living thing, an arrangement of poker cards, or Lego blocks).

The basic argument is that the selection of any random thing can end up producing noticeable “complexity” above the background noise, which is true. Everyone agrees. However, the type of complexity is important here when it comes to explaining the existence of a living thing. 

--A given selector in the environment, like a specific temperature acting on a material like water, may produce something more “complex” and even “specified”, like a particular type of snowflake. The same thing is true for a selector like gravity acting on gases comprised of randomly arranged atoms and cosmic dust to produce stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies. 

*However, that’s not the same type of complexity as a living thing or a complex machine where multiple different types of parts are needed to interact in a very specific way to produce a very specific type of function (i.e., specified functional complexity at different levels having different minimum part requirements). 

Assembly Theory doesn’t apply here since 

Assembly Theory isn’t concerned about

 the “right type” of selector that selects the “right thing.”

In short, in order to explain the origin of life, or any other complex machine requiring multiple different interacting parts working in collective harmony to produce a given function, the selector itself must be even more functionally complex than what it is producing or creating. Take a complex automobile, for example. It could be produced entirely by robots in a factory. However, the robots themselves have to have access to be even more functionally complex than the automobiles that they are assembling, to including having access to all of the structurally complex information necessary to correctly assemble the automobiles so that they will actually function, in addition to their own structure and functional complexity.

The argument that life exists, therefore life evolved by random chance, is a non sequitur – a very obvious circular argument. 

The best that Assembly Theory can do is detect that high-level selection has happened, but the very existence of life does not explain the mechanism of how life came to be – the actual nature of the “selector”. The bottom line is that Cronin is just assuming what he wants to prove. He hasn’t actually demonstrated anything regarding how any natural mindless mechanism could reasonably explain the origin of life.

Fakhouri asks the key question. “What is the driving force behind selection?”

“If only we knew of a mechanism, something that routinely steps through combinatorial space to assemble functional objects. You know, functional objects like talks, and papers, and equations, and ideas like Assembly Theory. You know, a mechanism like, but nah – we all know that we’re not allowed to go there.”

Of course, we are “not allowed to go there” because the only known “selector” that is actually capable of producing complex machines, to include the type of machines necessary to produce a living thing, is an intelligent creator at the level of a God or God-like intelligence." 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

Genesis 1:1

EducateTruth

Lightning

 He directeth it under the whole heaven, 

and His lightning unto the ends of the earth. 

Job 37:3

"Each year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that lightning strikes the planet about 1.4 billion

times, averaging 40–50 flashes per second worldwide, with up to 100 flashes per second, depending on the season. 

This immense frequency means that lightning is not a rare accident but a constant, global process woven into the fabric of ecological balance.

It is estimated that a single bolt can carry up to one billion volts and heat the air to 30,000 Kelvin: five times hotter than the surface of the sun. Lightning comes in a variety of forms, as well as being concentrated in specific hotspots globally. 

While many of us may be familiar with cloud‑to‑ground bolts, there are other varieties between and within clouds (intra‑cloud flashes), as well as “sprites” above thunderstorms, and rare “blue jets” shooting toward the stratosphere.

Taking the text as is, Genesis describes a “very good” creation. Lightning, in that pristine world, may have functioned as a non-harmful atmospheric regulator, balancing electrical charges between earth and sky, maintaining soil fertility, and energizing ecosystems without destructive consequence. 

Even today, lightning fixes nitrogen into the soil, enriching fertility
and sustaining plant life. This hints at its original purpose: a life‑supporting mechanism rather than a deadly force. In the following section, we elaborate more on some of these constructive functions of lightning.

Lightning plays a powerful function in ecosystems, engineering various environments.
1. One of lightning’s most vital contributions is nitrogen fixation in soils: a vital process to maintain soil fertility.
--Even though earth’s atmosphere is nearly 78% nitrogen in its gaseous form, nitrogen is inaccessible to plants. Lightning’s intense heat, (reaching up to 30,000 Kelvin) breaks apart nitrogen molecules, allowing them to combine with oxygen to form nitrates. These

nitrates dissolve in rain and enter the soil, becoming a natural fertilizer.
2. Another function of lightning is forest renewal.
--Even in wildfires, they may function as ecological reset buttons. In many ecosystems, particularly savannas and pine forests, fire clears out old growth, recycles nutrients locked in dead biomass, and opens space for new species to thrive.
3. A third ecological function of lightning is its contribution to atmospheric balance.
--As thunderstorms build up massive electrical charges as ice particles collide within clouds., without discharge, these imbalances could destabilize weather systems. Lightning acts as a release valve, equalizing charges between clouds and the ground. This stabilizing function helps regulate storm dynamics and prevents unchecked buildup of electrical energy. In this sense, lightning contributes to balance that keeps Earth’s atmosphere functioning smoothly." 

CEH

MYRF-1 and LIN-42

 Sounds like DESIGN: and DESIGN = a DESIGNER.

"A newly discovered genetic clock acts as the body’s developmental timekeeper, coordinating the bursts of gene activity needed for growth.
Think about a train sitting at a station. Passengers have boarded, conductors are checking tickets, and everything is ready to go. But if the engineer’s watch never signals departure, the doors stay open, the whistle never blows, and the train never leaves the platform.
A similar problem can occur inside living organisms whendevelopmental timing goes wrong. Instead of delaying a trip, a breakdown in the body’s internal schedule can prevent normal growth and maturation.
Researchers at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) have now identified what appears to be a master developmental clock in the tiny worm C. elegans. The discovery helps explain how cells know exactly when to activate key genetic programs during growth and development.
MYRF-1 and LIN-42, form a feedback circuit that acts as a central developmental clock. Together, they determine when each pulse of gene expression begins and how long it lasts.
According to the researchers, this is the first example of a biological clock designed to run through a finite sequence of events rather than repeating continuously.
“This is the central clock for all cells in the worm,” Hammell explains. “It’s responsible for coordinating a finite series of sequential pulses of gene expression that must occur only once, and in order, for proper developmental progression. It’s like a ratchet. It turns genes on and off multiple times during development, but ultimately, it’s only going in one direction.” 
According to the researchers, this is the first example of a biological clock designed to run through a finite sequence of events rather than repeating continuously.
“This is the central clock for all cells in the worm,” Hammell explains. “It’s responsible for coordinating a finite series of sequential pulses of gene expression that must occur only once, and in order, for proper developmental progression. It’s like a ratchet. It turns genes on and off multiple times during development, but ultimately, it’s only going in one direction.”

Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex!

Psalm 139:14 NLT

SciTechDaily

The "exquisitely ordered" sense of smell

Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex!

Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
Psalm 139:14 NLT

"A spatial code governs olfactory receptor choice and aligns sensory maps in the nose and brain (Brann et al., Cell Press, 28 April 2026). Researchers created a detailed diagram of smell receptors in the nose that fills in missing details of how olfaction works.

In this paper, researchers Brann and colleagues made a groundbreaking discovery that overturned decades of assumptions that the neurons carrying olfactory receptors were randomly distributed. The press release from Harvard Medical School, reproduced at ScienceDaily, describes the discovery in the following way:

“By mapping millions of neurons in mice, researchers discovered that smell receptors in the nose aren’t random at all—they’re arranged in neat, overlapping stripes based on receptor type, forming a hidden structure scientists never knew existed. Even more striking, this layout mirrors how smell information is mapped in the brain, revealing a coordinated system from nose to neural circuits.

What they found challenges long-standing assumptions. Instead of being randomly distributed, the neurons that carry these receptors are highly organized.

They form horizontal bands, or stripes, 

running from the top of the nose to the bottom,

 grouped by receptor type.”

This well organized and structured olfactory system now joins the list of other sensory organs (for vision, hearing, and touch) where receptor maps have been charted as highly organized, and also testifies as yet another example of something thought to be random now being revealed as exquisitely ordered.

From a Biblical creationist perspective, though, this discovery is not surprising." 

CEH

Fog Designed for the Web of Life on Earth

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:7

"Scientists discovered that fog droplets can host living bacteria that grow and help remove harmful pollutants from the atmosphere, revealing fog as a surprisingly active microbial environment.

Researchers at Arizona State University discovered that fog droplets can act like tiny floating habitats where bacteria grow, multiply, and even remove harmful pollutants from the air. The findings, published in mBio, challenge the long-held view of fog as chemically passive moisture suspended near the ground.
Instead, fog may function more like a temporary ecosystem with active biological processes happening inside billions of microscopic water droplets.
For cloud researcher Thi Thuong Thuong Cao, the discovery began with a simple but unusual question: 

Q: could fog actually support life?"
SciTechDaily

Moon: Formation Theories

"Evolutionists claim that our moon was formed by natural processes without the need for a creator. This view, however, is not supported by science, as all the explanations they propose have major problems.

Explanation 1: from dust
Evolutionists say that our sun and its orbiting planets (i.e. our ‘solarsystem’) arose from a rotating gas/dust cloud approximately 4.5 billion years ago. This is known as the ‘nebular hypothesis’, from Latin, nebula meaning ‘cloud. Some have suggested that the moon simply formed at the same time and sufficiently close to the earth to end up in orbit around it. This is known as the ‘condensation theory’.
--If this explanation were correct, however, we would expect the moon to be akin to a mini Earth, being made up of essentially the same materials. The moon, however, is significantly less dense than the earth, and hence must be made up of different materials.

Explanation 2: a ‘spin-off’
Another suggestion is that an originally molten earth spun so fast that part of it flew off and became the moon. This is known as the ‘fission theory’, from Latin, fissio meaning ‘splitting’, proposed by George Darwin, son of Charles.

--Calculations, however, indicate that the earth’s rotational speed would never have been great enough for this to happen. Another problem is the marked differences between rocks found on the moon and those on the earth. If the moon were once part of the earth, we would expect moon and earth rocks to contain elements in similar amounts; but this is not so.

Explanation 3: from outer space
Some have argued that the moon must have formed elsewhere and, as
it flew through the galaxy, it just happened to pass close enough to

the earth to be captured by its gravity. 
it flew through the galaxy, it just happened to pass close enough to
the earth to be captured by its gravity. 

--If this were so, then we would expect the moon to follow an elongated orbit around the earth, similar to that of Halley’s comet around the sun. The moon’s orbit, however, is essentially circular; hence the ‘capture theory’ fails.

Explanation 4: a great impact
This view, currently the most popular among evolutionists, holds that a hypothetical planet (called Theia) collided with the earth and the resulting debris formed the moon. This is said to explain the

differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks discussed above. The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the
differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks discussed above. The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the moon’s crust.
--Here, however, it is the similarities between rocks that cannot be explained. With the impact theory, part of the moon would have formed from the earth and part from the impacting planet. So the chemistry of moon rocks would be expected to be different to that of Earth rocks. While it is true that the moon is deficient in some Earth elements, those that are shared can have very similar properties.

The real explanation
Of course, the moon is no mystery to those who believe the Bible. According to the book of Genesis, this heavenly body was specially created by God on Day 4 of Creation Week:
--And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:16–19."
CMI

INFORMATION

"Many origin-of-life researchers now regard the origin of the information in these biomacromolecules as the central question facing their research. 

As Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has stated, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”

Q:  And how does this "information" originate and from whence does it come?

A: 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. Isaiah 40:28