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



News 233


Creation Research News Sheet,

received September 2002


See also His Time is Near 2003, Ch. 9, loc. cit., incl. *1


Light is Quite Speedy:

The Light of God has been there from the First




Ah! You say, what nonsense is this. It was not till after darkness that God commanded light. This of course is true; but that is not the ‘light’ one had in view, as to the “first”. It is the light of understanding in view; and this is being contrasted with the mere light to illuminate physical things, so much less, since man uses this light to destroy and maim, quite routinely, and the light which illumines such unillumined deeds, though paralleled with darkness in his human mind, is not by any means the main one.


This is so; nevertheless today the first issue is physical light. It has been lauded as a sort of noble invariable, standing sublime amidst a deteriorating universe, in terms so necessary that though many denied them, and appealed to other data, this noble gesture was made.


However facts have problems with theories that do not yield, and this dream about light, as it increasingly appears to be, is being jabbed hard by data.


Before however, the reader goes further, it will be necessary to read pp. 3-8 above, which set the tone, and are not merely the preface for this work, but the preliminary to this chapter. This done, we proceed.





An interesting sheet from Creation Research of Queensland, draws attention to new developments concerning the speed of light controversy. This has been treated at some length on this site, but a convenient brief coverage is to be found in Barbs, Arrows and Balms Ch. 15, in which the author, an engineer by name Malcolm Bowden, of a Technical Journal article in 1998 (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 241-244) is treated in the broader context. The case for its decrease seemed well and concisely put, and this was considered with much interest and approval. It is useful to realise, that this area of fascinating considerations in light, and its velocity, as noted in Ch. 15 cited above, relates to just one of the models which brings the age of the earth to dimensions far smaller than many, it seems, would like to think.


Now we find that Dr Graham French of the University of Canberra, Australia, has addressed not only the noted admission of Paul Davies (concerning some of whose statements,  see SMR pp. 422Aff., TMR Ch. 7) and his team of scientists, but the issue of the speed of light more generally.


Concerning the first point, media source provides this:


v   “A team of Australian scientists, led by theoretical physicist (and evolutionist) Paul Davies from Sydney’s Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed ‘over billions of years’. They have proposed the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics – Einstein’s theory of relativity (Aug 7, 2002, Reuters, Aug 8, 2002 – Canberra Times etc.).


We have of course earlier considered something of Dr Humphreys' position on this complex of issues, and reported on this in such places as SMR pp. S 22ff., in Ch. 15, Barbs, Arrows and Balms, and TMR Ch. 7, Section E. The flux in physics is now so intense that what it might do next, in the light of its philosophical secular darkness, is an interesting question, without much light. The Editor of the Creation Research paper points out that there was coverage given to Barry Setterfield’s work when he was editor of Ex Nihilo, in 1982 (Vol. 1).


Dr Graham French, head of Electronics at Canberra University, gives a review following the Reuters article above (last month published), and it is interesting to consider it. It is “interesting”, he says, that “a phenomenon such as the decrease in the speed of light makes the popular press (CT 8/8/02) only when a popular Professor of Theoretical Physics accedes to the possibility of such an occurrence.”


He points out that “the hypothesis that C (the universally accepted symbol for the speed of light) has decayed over time (Called CDK) has been elucidated for many years. Up to recent times, however it has been (almost) universally rejected by the scientific community because of the supposed consequences for the General Theory of Relativity (Albert Einstein) and the implications of radiometric dating methods” – these clinging tenuously to its tails. C bears heavily on age rating and dating, via its integral relationship with radioactive decay rate.


Not only does C directly affect age rating and dating.


Variation in it, of any substantial magnitude, brings radiometric dating at once, all to sea, in fact to oceanic disturbances in its results, like those from some tsunami on the littoral buildings. It is like an accelerator or brake, on the assumed dates, very directly.


Let us however revert to the basic fact of C as such, for the moment ignoring its implications.


“In fact,” he proceeds, “CDK has been written about for over half a century. In 1987 a Stanford Research Institute Report (written by Australian mathematicians Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield) postulated a non-linear CD. In the same year V.S. Trotskii, a Russian theoretical physicist, published a detailed theory implying that the initial value of C had to be at least 10 billion times its present value to explain observed astronomical phenomena.” This of course makes the assured presumption of some of the dating assumptions even more ludicrous than they now are (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch. 7, Section E).


Indeed the concept of billions of times changes in this ‘constant’ was also raised as noted in CREATION Technical Journal 15 (2) for 2001, in which the finding that C could vary by billions of time in certain plasma situations, was noted, with research summary by John Woodmorappe. This is added to the earlier noted finding of variability by that lively thinker,  Professor Slusher of El Paso University Texas (cf. SMR pp. 78ff.), and that of Professor Wanser (TMR op.cit. End-note 2 to Section E) for their various fields of enquiry.


The comment from Graham French continues, however, like this:


“More recently, in 1998, Albrecht and Magueijo, respected theoretical physicists from Imperial College, London, published their proposal that light slow down CDK was a solution to current cosmological puzzles. Their work was featured recently on Equinox, a popular Science show on Channel 4 in Britain.”


The message ends with this word: “I trust that this debate will widen as we seek to come to grips with the question of the origin of the amazing Creation of which we are all a part.”


Here we find that not uncommon defenestration of the corrupt concept of the white-coated saint scientist (St Science’s Church ?), incorruptible and without prejudice. As we see on SMR pp. 205 ff., one very eminent scientist has reason enough, and not so very long ago, to mourn the grave failure of this to be the case. It is scientific method, not scientists, which is reliable. This is not to say they are unreliable, any more than butchers, nurses or accountants; but that a myth concerning their drives, motives and procedures, is not good for acute thought, any more than a cynical substitute. What IS needed is rational thought amid the findings of the differently directed human beings who constitute this profession.


It is, in terms of the naturalistic profusion of irrational thought (cf. A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3, Wake Up World!Ch. 5, Stepping out for Christ Chs.  2 and  7, Secular Myth and Sacred Truth Ch. 8, Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm… Chs.  1 and  7), that concern is felt for a new phlogiston-type crusade corrupting progress, as in the days of Lavoisier who taught science better: a tedious waste of time, just as Professor Søren Løvtrup so roundly asserted in his own field (cf. SMR pp. 252A-C, 203-204).


This tendency to ignore reality, so diverse from the declared aims of science, is of course no worse than in politics, where so many hair-brained substitutes for thought lie littered on the tarmac, colouring it red; and is merely a function of generic sin, intolerant of God, irrational when confronted with His works, intemperate either in obstruction, when in power, or obfuscation when not. It is just that when an idol, whether in football in science, is erected, man has another difficulty. The removal of idols is cognate to, but far worse than, the removal of a dummy from the pouting mouth of a particularly truculent baby. It offends the mind set, the emotional disposition, to DESIRE of the heart. It is TO BE RESISTED.




Consider then what has been happening. 


1 .

Ø    First, the simple, empirical  evidence on dates has been ignored (cf. TMR Ch. 7,  Section E), questions of time indicated for helium accumulation, limits for its persistence in rocks, for earth’s population, projected rates for earth leveling by erosive forces - and there are colossal mountains, magnetic field decay indications and successful creationist predictions, earth cooling indications, moon crater considerations in terms of rock viscosity (cf. Slusher, The Age of the Earth), sediment deposition indications, galaxy spiral spread plus massive walls in space contrary to Big Bang homogeneity expectations, together with spatial structuring and supernova predictions for ‘young’ and ‘old’ earth – relative to the data, reasonable inferences concerning age derived from river inputs of chemicals to the oceans (beautifully exposed in classified list by Dr John Morris in his work, “the scientific case for Creation”  pp. 55ff. ), ‘recent’ and ‘ancient’ stars with similar chemical composition, volcanic indications in a moon of Jupiter and the specialized specificities that continue remorselessly in space: in all these things, as shown at the above site and in SMR Ch. 2, it has long been apparent that the answer lies in one simple, identical direction.


Ø    Add the haemoglobin ‘keeping’ for millions of years, past and contrary to all testing work by orders of magnitude, yet the blood is found*1; the synthesis of orderly astronomical indications on the one hand and the comet and spiral phenomena in galaxies on the other, all in simple test mode, negative  to long ages, and many such things such as tree trunks minus roots, spreading through ‘millions of years’ worth of rock, or the simplicity of the Mt St Helen’s provision of vast ages (by geological presumption) in observable days.


Ø    There is only one empirical answer, covering all without distortion, deformity of guile, and straightforward observation of the joint flow of empirical testimony. A young earth is the only one which does not make a comedy of ‘errors’ of the facts.


2 . 

What has been used to colour the condition of things ?  Radiometric dating. On what does it depend ? ON multiplied assumptions, never removed (above reference), so that provided you know how old things are, you can find how old they are (the science of guessing cf. SMR pp. 240ff., and TMR Ch. 7, End-note 4).


Its measure of practical reliability, even with isochron dating which makes its own assumptions,  has been ridiculed so often, as shown in the above references, its collision with other dating methods, and this including diverse radiometric methods themselves, its selective preference for such dates as are expected and discard of the disagreeable, its irrational implications in diverse geological situations, when applied in practice, all these outcomes and incomes being contrary to all of scientific method: these things merely are the excuses for inadequate knowledge, inadequate formulation and inadequate information. This bundle of assumptions about how the world developed in order to find data to show how the world developed has been so extreme a delusion as to show, theologically, the extreme aptitude of Ephesians 4:17ff., where the alienation of the heart of man from God breeds ignorance.


3 . 

Empirically, then, the case for the long age of earth has been ridiculous. In terms of known and categorically fundamental scientific law, the requisitioning of time for advance has been merely a flat contradiction of the actual and  observable use of time for retardation, decay,  de-specification and the like (cf. Stepping out for  Christ Ch. 2, TMR Ch. 1, Wake Up World Chs. 4-6, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13). Not only is this anti-observational theorising, but it is contrary to logic in its normal parameters of thought (Repent or Perish Ch. 7).


4 . 

Not only so, the assumed beneficiaries of all the time so painstaking provided by such anti-scientific devices (relative to scientific method cf. SMR pp. 140ff;, and  TMR Ch. 1) are not in the least co-operative as Dr W. R. Thompson, when Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Research, pointed out (cf. SMR pp. 199ff., 312), when he referred to “fragile towers of hypotheses on hypotheses, where fact and confusion intermingle in inextricable confusion”. The lack of major transitional evidence for creature kinds of the biblical scope (Genesis 1) is fundamental, irrevocable, systematic and increasingly acknowledged as this or that myth is invoked, without any science, to account for the recalcitrant facts, the confrontational data (cf. SMR pp. 106, 236, Wake Up WorldCh. 6).


Parallel performance for the dating fiasco merely adds fiasco number two. How prone is the heart of man to the devices of his imagination! How cardinally so is this when the name and work of the Creator is in view, yes and for that matter, of the Saviour from precisely such plagues both in science and in philosophy, the latter the vying source for the former. Prone to such foozling and folly, man NEEDS the salvation as much as the realization, the one ministering to address the pathology of the other,  providing the light which banishes darkness, and arrests the subversive if unconscious desire for it.


5 . 

What then ? The TIME was not needed; the TIME was not in any case relevant to code construction to impel orders to cohesive designs (Repent or Perish Ch. 7); and the TIME was created in an anti-scientific method by hyper-hypothetical constructions in opposition to known empirical  evidence and law. But the case is worse! This led to simple nonsense situations with the actual biological evidence as well, at least somewhat faced by the outrageously non-conformist Gould, who almost escaped some of the irrationalities when speaking with such candour as is brought back to our attention, below (from Wake Up World!Ch. 6).


What is never found is a new design, a genuine novelty, a new architectural facility. That is why Goldschmidt remonstrates: "The facts of great general importance are these: - When a new phylum, class or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive... diversification so that practically all orders of families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions" - as cited in That Magnificent Rock on p. 38.

Gould is scarcely less literate on the topic of fact in this regard: "How could such a view of life as a single progressive chain, based on replacement by conquest and extending smoothly from the succession of organic designs through the sequence of human technologies, possibly accommodate  anything like our modern interpretations of the Burgess fauna ? ... The modern themes of maximal disparity and decimation by lottery are more than just unacceptable under such a view of life: they are literally incomprehensible. They could never even arise for consideration..." (Wonderful Life, p. 260).

This is literally true. It could not arise for consideration, except for a pseudo-papal decree, or decretal, or pronunciamento, this time  from biological 'believers' that so it MUST BE.


Arise for consideration! It is even enforced with withering rigour by the anti-cognoscenti, whose predicted belief in a lie (II Thess. 2:10-11, II Peter 3) is equal to the defrauding of scientific method occasioned in their arrant dogmatism. It is precisely like the papacy of old  telling Galileo that the earth does not rotate around the sun: for SO it MUST be, says their heretical authority.


And yet it does, muses Galileo! because of the fact, not mangled by false churches (SMR pp. ff.).  So here: "the life does NOT come by the superabundant power of creative enactment without evidence of 'trying'. Life MOVES." This is what the 'church' of Philosophical Biology decrees. You MUST affirm that it does not.

Yes, it does not come that way, say many Galileos of this century, in feigned acquiescence in the face of  money and power and prestige, ranting at them; and then mumble under their breaths, following their evidences of arrivals: and yet it does. It is required to disbelieve it in circumstances all but innumerable as often documented in this site, or else to act as if one did. Gould as we see above, despite being better in acknowledging facts than many, does just the same. His credo leaps from the mind, but finds no place in the book of life, for reference. It is just a dichotomy, with emphasis on the "die", as far as correct procedure in thought is concerned.

Again, we read from him in his candour,


"Instead of a narrow beginning and a constantly expanding upward range, multi-cellular life reaches its maximal scope at the start, while later decimation leaves only a few surviving designs" - p. 233 op.cit...


Indeed,  we find this: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" -   

S. J., Gould in his work,  "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 119-130 (1980),  cf. SMR p. , 315Aff..


6 . 

The affair grows as it has grown, worse, like final mode of terminal cancer.


Ø    In addition to these methodological villainies (in breach terms, that is, not in intention),


Ø    they are imagined for the SORT of situation which even on varied Big Bang monstrosities is wildly contrary to the extremes required at the outset. The yellowing, if you will, of the printed page is taken as a rate index to the speed of its manufacture! Constitution as a measure of institution however, by whatever originative means, for what manifestly decays, is not a leap of faith, but a field for fiasco.


Ø    These monstrosities, moreover, are contrary in themselves to so much increasingly available measured data, that simply does not fit, that the Big Bang theme is becoming far less popular, being just one more assemblage of anomaly: the empirical evidence conflicting with the requirement of hypothesis in the precisely anti-scientific method manner, to which one becomes so accustomed in this sort of field  (cf. TMR Ch. 7, End-note 2),   a piper’s drone as of death, wild theory tangled with the tedium of endless empirical contradiction. This, it is in turn, precisely  that funereal drone, normal for finishing scientific theories, though as with dictators in the flesh, there may be those who wish to keep them ostensibly alive, though death is their actual lot.






Thus, highly diverse situations, even on the Big Bang anomaly, would have to be expected in the FORMATION stage, relative to the CONTINUATION stage. It is thus that the immensely presumptuous thoughts arose. Assume that what happens in a universe under maintenance (as it observably is in all departments available), not in creation, is the same as in creation, and what do you have ? It is, as noted in SMR pp. 75ff., a horrible ignoring of the case in point! It is analogous to saying that the way an embryo is made bears strikingly close time and decay resemblance to the way a teen-ager is maturing. The case is grotesquely and inimitably a contortion and abortion combined.


This was noted in TMR Ch. 7; but it is worse even than that. The very sort of case where it is found that there could be huge divergences from the C speed, IS in situation just of this category, an intense and dramatic kind, the researches being with plasma*2. It is what you would expect in principle, but to find it so designated in practice and research for such a style of event, this is – if possible - even worse. Such heat as is in the sun, for example, and the matter states that may currently be there, are perhaps almost a minimal thing, when compared with the brilliance of its institution! Even in what may be comparable to that, however, we learn, we are in the field for billion-fold alteration in C.


The empirical is dumped to the point that we might as well write a novel. Then the novel is found to be a wild one. What would you expect when engendering is confused with continuance, except an intellectual maelstrom! Now the storm is passing over the land of academia, and it may well blush; but when it comes to storms, blushing may be legitimate, yet it is not all! The havoc wrought in this incendiary alienation from scientific method in the first place, is now finding the truth of the biblical proverb: Sow the wind and reap the whirl-wind!


¨    What remains is time,
that harassed fugitive from justice,
hiding in endless flimsy constructions,
behind tedious anomalies,
behind pompous words and absurd pretensions,
never sated, never used,
merely waved about like a trident,
as if the British navy had a Britannia plus trident effigy,
but neglected its men and weapons.


One must however return to earth.  It is high time. The flirtation with the preposterous must end. It has absorbed too much and too many. Incidentally, they soon will move, if not to heaven, then at least to earth, when the Truth Himself returns. It is no coincidence that He is in heaven awaiting the time to rule (Acts 1:7ff., 3:19ff., Hebrews 9:28, 7:25, II Thessalonians 1, Zechariah 14:5, Matthew 24).


The precise antithetical romancing which has occurred is part of the scope of His arrangements, indeed predicted plan (cf. II Peter 3:3-5, Matthew 24:24,10-12, Joyful Jottings Ch. 8, Answers to Questions Ch. 5), not forcing, but directing the flow and taking His own steps as He will; for in such things as these both His power, which provided the Exodus for the Jew in the great exhibition of divine versus secular power, and His wisdom which provided for man, the Christ, are made manifest; and through both, His love in patience (II Peter 3:9), for there is no exclusion in the grandeur of the grace of His heart (John 3:16), though it comes in profusion when truth rejected, mercy is banished as if garbage (John 3:19,36).


As to the physical light, what do we then find ? It is this. The facts are of one kind where known, and of no kind where unknown, except that what is known is that in the interstices of creation, huge increases of speed of C, and decreases of time, are in view, matching to perfection the anomalous situations of current disparities between theoretical dating and empirically based dating, extended-hypothesis upon hypothesis, where ideas call the shots, and the shots tend to be ignored where this is not done.

The date with dating has really expired; the present date is with the LORD, and it is unwise to ignore the fact that just as physical light has enormous velocity, so the reception of spiritual light from the hand which is source for man of both, should not be slow (II Corinthians 6:1ff.).



For more on this topic and related themes, see:

TMR Ch. 7,
Section E, Divine Agenda
Ch. 1,

and The Defining Drama Ch. 3. 

See also Dayspring, Ch. 9 in A Spiritual Potpourri,

His Time is Near Ch. 9,

and Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13.




*1 From TMR Ch. 7, Section E, *2, we have the following to the point:

Indeed, these data give ample thrust to the conception of an earth young enough to allow for FOSSIL DNA (Creation, March-May, 1993, p. 9). There cited in New Scientist, Oct. 17, 1992, is a Nature article's reference to DNA magnolia tree fragments, "allegedly some 18 million years old", in the context of Nature's article to the effect that "the rate at which DNA breaks down spontaneously means that after 10,000 years there should be none left."  Even excluding moisture and bacteria, says New Scientist, this means that "total breakdown should occur by 10,000 years at most."

Amber is a good keeper for this, and New Scientist reports that two separate teams of US researchers have "extracted DNA sequences from a termite and a stingless bee, both in ... amber, of evolutionary age 30 million years." Similarly, New Scientist reports that dinosaur bones of e.g. 75 million years, have "yielded the protein osteocalcin". As proteins have long chains which naturally disjoin, this discovery confirms the others just noted. Such things as these are no longer in defiance of bio-chemistry, when the evidence is all taken as it requires, in terms of laws and logic, to its conclusion. A young earth is the empirical indication, and satisfies what nothing else does in many dimensions.

Again in Dec.- Feb. 1996 (p.9) , Creation magazine again quotes from New Scientist (May 27, 1995) re "many recent claims  of extracting DNA - tiny, unbroken strands of complex molecule that carries the various instructions for living things - from amber insects." This is an exciting new discovery, it notes, for creationists. It  adds that "evidence that DNA should not be there after only 10,000 years is " so persuasive" that some try to discount the evidence itself. Now, it relates,

v           "the chairman of the microbiology department at California Polytechnic State University, and an assistant, have claimed in Science magazine they have cultured live bacteria from the gut of a bee in Dominican amber. According to evolutionary assumptions, the fossil is 25-40 million years old." General agreement, despite wonderment and concern, is that the claim is 'most compelling'. The researchers also claim that have revived 1500 different types of ancient micro-organism.

Yet such matters do not stop: for how could you hold back a dam by a theory ? Thus in a 2000-2001 report, there is claim to have isolated and revived salt-resistant bacteria from a salt intrusion dated 250 million years old appeared (reported in Nature 407:897-900, 2000). Great pains, it is indicated, were taken to prevent contamination.

The report of Micahel J. Oard, Dec. 26, 2001, notes this: “The researchers admit that they do not know how the bacteria could survive 250 million years … It truly is astonishing that bacteria, DNA, red blood cells, bone proteins, etc. could really survive the vicissitudes of tectonics, heating events, water seeping through the rocks, and other geological processes for millions of years and remain ‘alive.’ Before this barrage of discoveries, scientists considered that such survival was impossible past several thousands or tens of thousands of years.” So does the fairy wand of will wave over the land of make-believe, the unwarranted assured, the negated affirmed, as in the vastly endowed Cambrian fields explored by Gould, verifications denied (cf. Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm … Chs.   1 and   7, SMR pp. 140ff., Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13, at “Conspectus”), laws broken (TMR Ch. 1), and the dam of fact bursts continually over the sorry scene. But let us revert to this particular bacteria case.

This also explains how 'small pieces of coalified bark' could be detached from a coal seam component (Creation, Sept-Nov.1998), assigned an age of 250 million years, and then given a laboratory age of about 34000 years. As Dr Snelling points out, if the wood were really 250 million years old, there would not even be expected the C14 or radioactive carbon, on which to make the assessment! So do the very stones cry out, the very seams and their very contents, as well as the dates! All radio-carbon, he notes,  should have decayed "in a fraction of that alleged time."

Dr Robert Gentry’s work on coal (Creation's Tiny Mystery, pp. 54ff.) similarly shows carefully reasoned grounds for the supposition that the Colorado Plateau coal seams were in fact formed in a small number of years. His double halo empirical work is outstanding, and the implications considered with care, leading to this result.

The principles and the practice in this area all point to a young earth age, in concert. This explains the evidence; the option of scientific guesswork, assuming determinable rates of radioactive decay despite the ignorance, and the variability as noted above,  and assuming original situations from which decay is to occur, was never valid and does not cover the empirical case. This is again true of the helium situation for earth.


The following from Deliver Us from Disorientation Ch. 6, may also prove useful at this point, for summary purposes:

The date game is up. The ludicrous insistences on assumptions, now better seen as guesses as Professor Andrews emphasised in his excellent piece of learned iconoclasm of science falsely so-called, God, Science and Evolution, Ch. 6, is contradicted on all sides.

It is spurned in terms varying from

  • helium concentrations  to ocean deposits,
  • uranium in particular, from
  • haemoglobin allegedly many millions of years old; and
  • bacteria likewise 'dated' at 250 million years of age (Creation,  Sept.-Nov. 2001, p. 15), despite the temporary fragility and the instability of such vital exhibits, and/or their sealing without outside energy available;

  •  the astral structure, heavy in order,
  • the supernova statistics;

  • the dating of wood supposedly (in the oblivion of conceit) in the millions of years, when it is taken from deep deposits, but by measurement exhibited as merely thousands of years in age,
  • the variability options in radioactive decay rates now variously demonstrated, and indeed the prodigious variability seen in situations which could relate rather intimately to those of creation;

  • the performances of the magnetic field of the earth;
  • the cooling span for the earth and so on, and on: these things simply add up,
  • the population statistics,
  • the erosive equations,
  • the immaturity of assessed radiohalos where abundance of source material and alleged age should show far greater development;

  •  the failure of the progressive concept in terms of design development (as seen in Gould re Cambrian deposits and in recent further acknowledgments - Creation, Sept.-Nov. 2001, p.7, cf. Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital MilleniumCh. 13), both in the intense proliferation, on current geological theory, at the outset and the comparative stability since;

  •  the effective iconoclast critiques of Arp in his brilliant exposures of the Big Bang, even if he has yet to see the end of the matter as it is! (cf. Divine Agenda Ch. 1),
  • the abundant attestations of co-existence of dinosaur and man (cf. SMR pp. 205ff.)
  • the discovery of protein in dinosaur bones of alleged date beggaring grounds for its continuity (cf. That Magnificent Rock, TMR, Ch. 7, Section E,  *2);
  • tree trunks found in ever greater abundance, happily nestling vertically into strata of alleged millions of years formation time!
  • contemporary exhibits in Mount St Helen's of much that was once thought to be integral to antiquity, wrought in days,
  • total and continual failure to find anything which gains new information in descending from progenitors, to make time, rapidly evaporating from delusive theories, even slightly relevant to the prodigies desired (cf. Divine Agenda Ch. 1, SMR Ch. 2):

  •  the total and continual contradiction of the three main laws of physics in the evolutionary concept per se (cf. That Magnificent Rock, Chs.  1  and   8) -

but this is not a dating excursion*1, merely a date with reality. Let us proceed.


*2 FROM TMR (loc. cit. *4), we find this point in considering the affirmation of vast increase in C in certain plasma type situations. As noted there from the report, re this change:


“The latter  may occur in the plasma state, which is thought to be that such as abides in the sun, at extremely high temperature. In that matter-dispersive state, in which normal coherence is changed, electrons and atomic nuclei are deemed to exist, with a measure of dismantling from the norm.”


Let us revise our thought on the point from TMR:


“This nine order of magnitude increase in radioactive decay, then, evidently occurs when a neutron changing into a proton, has eventual products including an expelled derivative electron, exiting as a negative beta particle,  b. The process, difficult to stage as an escape in normal circumstances, appears greatly assisted if the nucleus first loses surrounding electrons, these  vacating or not locating in their orbits, this situation facilitating exit for particles to be expelled with nucleus change.


“The latter may occur in the plasma state, which is thought to be that such as abides in the sun, at extremely high temperature. In that matter-dispersive state, in which normal coherence is changed, electrons and atomic nuclei are deemed to exist, with a measure of dismantling from the norm.


“This type of accelerated b emission scenario has been found, the report indicates, in the rhenium-osmium system, with the billion-fold acceleration of decay rate, thus reducing an anticipated 42 billions of years to some 33 years, in terms of half-life. This type of accelerated response has also been found in other (cited) cases.


“This is a true-to-type exemplification of merely the sort of thing expected in


·       a) the creation process itself, when parts may have been co-ordinated from unco-ordinated bases.  


·       b) the day when initiating processes themselves may have been forged which, in the incremental moulding and forming processes of creation, were far removed from the mature and relatively dignified events of the completed forms, delimited to their desires parameters akin to the purpose, information being fed from formulation.  


·       c) the mini-processes which may have been contributory to maxi-ones, such as, purely as admonition, in the opposite direction,  fragmentation particles, of small time endurance, indicate in the break-down scale. This is illuminating in that the make-up moments are an ample repository for what is diverse and even divergent by NATURE, just as, to take a gross example, molten metal has very different characteristics in terms of accomplishing change of form, from those of  solid metal in which the product may be housed, and far more generally, any unintegrated part of a system is at that primary stage, not regulated by the mechanisms, restraints, constraints and paradigms of the design, which limit, direct and by formulation, as in the DNA for man, exclude and include for what is the limit desired.  


·       d) the fluctuations expository of the conceptual criteria for creation, which no more are bound to appear in the characteristics of the completed work, than are the forms of thought in the fashioned phrases later, and duly built to accommodate them.


·       e) the sheer speed of institution, which as in matters of thought to our experience on a daily basis, leaves the expression and the formulation, very frequently, a major work to perform in parallel. Thus there is the sheer idea, or understanding, there is the forming of this into words, and then there is the forming of the words into the syntactical sophistication of communication devices. Movements of expressive media in creation vary enormously in the most general sense, and on the most expansive scale of experience, from their relative stability when the work is done, and the paper and the print exist stably by one's side.

It is sheer negligence to disregard what we know of creation in the amazing record of many writers and scientists, in the various forms of its appearance in the mind, spirit and hand of man, in considering the creation of our universe.”


In fact, often children used to be said to be “creating” when misbehaving obstreperously, but here the danger is the precise opposite: to be misbehaving (with regard to scientific method) in not facing creation! This only has no contradictions with the empirical, the legal and the harmony of evidence, with regard to time. It needs NOTHING, and can freely get what it is shown to have taken, to the extent such events are shadowed by the present; and the time stretching back to the start of the processes we know from observation, is neither anomalous nor difficult, when all the direct measurements are considered, and the fantasies of some of the most massively arrogant, or at least disingenuous assumptions of all time, are removed from a controlling place in the cockpit of thought, and placed out the window, to be blown with the other winds.


The calibration of the myth of time in its sheer prodigies of immensity, doing what it has no power to do, the intensity of precision mingling callowly with the profundity of the ignorance of the processes involved, is indeed ludicrous. Worse than the anomaly of method (like putting 2.345 when the number could as well be 234.5), the thing in principle in this theoretical confine, is contrary to what time does have power to do!


It is for this reason that this is no more worthy of the serious thought of man, than the calibration of any other myth, founded on confusion, propounded in profusion, heeded by the unwary, the caught and the needy, reverenced by the faithful, its ceremonies sustained by precisely what the Bible has said in advance in II Peter 3, a trend to mock God; and if some do not so intend it, disease is often infection, and many can be caught by cultural traps, and so inured, that thought becomes an unlikely event, except in the confines of the prison imposed. It is for this reason, not least, that the power of God in liberating people from so many of the past cultural traps, and impelling so many of the first rate scientific innovators to truth, is so clearly shown.


It takes a lot to do that; a lot is given. It works. Nothing with God, is impossible. What IS impossible, is the nothingness of making time do the job that does not so much need time, as creative facility, power and mental craftsmanship of a kind not found in man. Given TIME, the universe decays; and so does man.


What is needed, is not more time, but more truth, that does not decay; and He whose it is, is needed, for there is no other option, no other name, no other work, no other testimony which rules as it has ruled, neither any scientific philosophy or other ‘wisdom’; and truth never relieves itself in its duty, nor restricts itself from what is written. Divorce there is one of the great non-events of history, though many have they been, who have sought such a result!


When Jesus Christ said this: I am the way, the truth and the life, He was simply stating a fact. It is one on which much hangs; but it is of the order of fact. To contest in the time of day, with Him, evidentially, logically, historically, empirically, prophetically, methodologically, scientifically, morally, in effectuality, in wisdom, in demonstrability, in verification, there is, in this case, literally and accurately, NOTHING! His word stays; other words fail in contest, and fall in their day.


His ? It is so tomorrow when He comes to rule; it is His today as He gives life to the lost, newly redeemed, the price being sufficient for all, and paid for His; it was His, yesterday when He rose, has been always, from the creation, not as with men, of a book, but of the DNA of life, written with brilliant pen, and the drama of matter, inscribed with form and energy according to law, principle and procedure after which man still  limps.


Not in proud surmisings, but in humble worship must man come, and only then will understanding come, without which no theories will ever rule, will ever stand, which huddle like children in the light, blocking the reading. Truth discarded is knowledge retarded; and while man spends billions on seeking for companions to “arise” in space, he lamentably fails the billions who languish on an earth sundered by war, greed, corruption, indifference, wild extremes, irrationality and desire. It was to be and it is (Matthew 24:11, Revelation 6). The scene, the setting and the  scenario was to be, and it is so.


Time ALWAYS DOES THAT. It is a prime chronological function: it gives itself for the word of God to operate. There is always time for that; and for that, time is always effective. It is better left where it empirically belongs, where it really does work, and is verified in its task!