What we will be dealing with in the future is so big that most people can't get their minds around it, and need time and looking at it from different angles to get used to the idea and its validity. For example, when I say "the Earth was subjected to a wholesale re-formation in order to enable a great design", many followers of currently-accepted science consider this claim an insult to modern science, and to the theory of plate tectonics in particular. So they refuse to look at the new facts I have uncovered in my own research program. After all, that theory is the recognized linchpin, the central theory, for all the earth sciences today. As an older scientist, I would counsel the newer generations to remember that it achieved this high status only recently (within the last 40 years or so). Here is an article I wrote about a recent development brought forward by scientists in the field, to show another way of looking at it for the average interested reader:
I have just coined a new term: Punctuated Plate Tectonics.
Remember when Stephen Gould hypothesized "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the strange apparent pattern of evolution as a succession of ages, each beginning with a worldwide extinction of most previous lifeforms, followed by a swift repopulation of the world by new ones, with relatively little evolutionary change through ensuing millions of years, until the next catastrophe-led "age"? Perspicacious critics of evolution pointed out that his hypothesis merely admitted the obvious--that natural selection was a mechanism for homeostasis, or little change in species over even geologic time spans, rather than for continued, gradual evolution--but they were ignored or dismissed as religious creationists, not the scientists they often were.
Now comes a report at enn.com that plate tectonics, too, shows clear signs of being an on-again, off-again process. As the report says:
Writing in the January 4  issue of Science, Paul Silver of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism and former postdoctoral fellow Mark Behn (now at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) point out that most of today's subduction zones are located in the Pacific Ocean basin. If the Pacific basin were to close, as it is predicted to do about [sic] in 350 million years when the westward-moving Americas collide with Eurasia, then most of the planet's subduction zones would disappear with it.
This would effectively stop plate tectonics unless new subduction zones start up, but subduction initiation is poorly understood. "The collision of India and Africa with Eurasia between 30 and 50 million years ago closed an ocean basin known as Tethys," says Silver. "But no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa to compensate for the loss of subduction by this ocean closure."
From this simple observation and other evidence, the scientists conclude:
Plate tectonics is driven by heat flowing from the Earth's interior, and a stoppage would slow the rate of the Earth's cooling, just as clamping a lid on a soup pot would slow the soup's cooling. By periodically clamping the lid on heat flow, intermittent plate tectonics may explain why the Earth has lost heat slower than current models predict. And the buildup of heat beneath stagnant plates may explain the occurrence of certain igneous rocks in the middle of continents away from their normal locations in subduction zones.
"If plate tectonics indeed starts and stops, then continental evolution must be viewed in an entirely new light, since it dramatically broadens the range of possible evolutionary scenarios," says Silver.
Scientists critical of plate tectonics have long pointed out that the total length of "subduction zones" (trenches) and "collision zones" is only about one-third of the total length of "spreading zones", quite contrary to the theory, so this newly-perceived lack of new subduction zones in the wake of the closing of the Tethys sea merely confirms those critics. Plate tectonics is not the robust , successul theory--the triumphant linchpin of all the earth sciences--that it is usually presented as being. It is failing; it has always failed. This report admits "subduction initiation is poorly understood," but scientists such as David Pratt, Dong Choi and others have pointed out the real truth, that there is no good evidence for subduction at all, anywhere, and calculations indicate the subduction of lighter crustal material into the denser mantle cannot be initiated, much less maintained by heat-driven, internal currents. Geophysicists resisted continental drift for about 50 years because they could find no sufficient physical cause for it. Although science is now well assured that the continents were moved over the Earth, it still has no physically reasonable cause for such wholesale movement. Science does not want to face it, but the truth is that we know "continental drift" occurred, but (some of us know, and all should know) "plate tectonics" was not responsible. The reader is also referred to mantleplumes.org, a site devoted to detailed scientific discussions and articles critical of plate tectonics theory.
This is where my discoveries come in. I have shown in my work that the Earth was re-formed--not created, re-formed--wholesale and by deliberate design, less than 20,000 years ago according to both ancient testimony and the design itself (which communicates a coherent, verifiable purpose). Remembrance of that design, through "sacred images" and "sacred stories", or myths, was the motivation for the subsequent religious obsessions, and all the greater endeavors (toward science as well as art and religion), of mankind. Plate tectonics as it is currently envisioned will never be confirmed, because physics has all along been against it, and now the design of the "gods" (as they were known in earliest recorded history, worldwide) makes it unnecessary.
Isaac Newton famously compared himself to a child playing with pretty stones on the beach, while before him lay the real ocean of truth, unexplored. When will science stop tossing up "pretty stones"--like the article reported on here, claiming what I call "punctuated tectonics"--that really only underline the fundamental, even logical, weaknesses of the most-admired theories of our time? The real history of the Earth has been one of successive designs.