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


We have looked at cosmological outrage against the Bible. Now let us look at cosmologies for their own part. We have seen the building, ostensibly on a Biblical basis, a cosmological structure which would render it quite unrecognisable. Man however was made for righteousness, though inheriting sin; and the world was made in an uncondemned structure, though receiving vanity; and into this world, when its recent life was throbbing, came a re-structuring which no man or system or government or god can change. Into this changed world much later came Christ; whose death did not stop Him but merely implemented His vicarious death for those, already in receipt of the death penalty for sin, who should come to Him; whose resurrection gave foretaste of the next celestial phase of ungrading, following, for His disciples, the cosmic preliminary of downgrading.

Death thundered like a tornado into the world, and its residency is oblivious of all efforts, except those of Jesus Christ, including that age-old method: ignore it! It will not however go away, spiritualised or vaporised or socialised or politicised or criticised. Only the blood of Christ is adequate, by death, to remove its toll.

What however of the cosmologies, which have been seeking to become quite cosy. Let us look at their field.

Assumptions of what non-god could not do, are repeatedly made for example in Ross's cited work, as if in some esoteric way this had some bearing on time, in some way limited God's creative inputs and their time and space aspects and order. Naive assumptions about E=MC2, during or limiting the process of creation are made, again revealing the secular thrust of thought, however unconscious. Indeed, the concept of process in the construction of process is far from coincident with the sovereign majesty of the Biblical account, and it is itself an importation into the text.

The recently active Hubble-space telescope, confirming as we have cited, 'missing mass' is simply ignored by Ross here (see Slusher, supra Chs. 1 and 2). Dr Russell Humphreys' concept of the stretching out of space in creation, a specific point with numbers of scriptural statements, is given no account, though the concepts have been published for some years, presented as a cosmological model at the Third International Conference on Creationism (1994) in Pittsburgh, and now may appear in coming works, one of them Starlight and Time, just published. (Creation Magazine, 17:1, p. 38, also notes that Dr Ross has in fact declined to debate the issue on radio, with Dr Robert Humphreys.) Slusher's many cosmological conundrums are given only passing thought. Indeed, as Slusher points out, there are all sorts of cosmological hypotheses which can be made (see Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, pp. 8 ff., cf. DeYoung, Astronomy and the Bible, pp. 90-95 on quasars and diverse red-shift interpretations). These are of interest philosophically, as to why they are held - as indeed is the case with all philosophy, often a study in mental pathology, historical crests of interaction and mutual criticism.

It is however classic when what the system could produce again and again, in Ross's work, becomes a limit, or a time measurement, in a book ostensibly dealing, at least in some sense, with the Creator.

a) Conceptual Confusion

Let us examine further. Most amazing in Ross's work is the use of created constraints (modes of the thing when rendered operative) as if they allow the reconstruction of the way, the path in which it was instituted at the first, or the time it took reach this or that condition, position or inter-relationship of these or those components. We have already considered some of his preconceived ideas, and misrenderings of elements involved.

Doubtless if the universe were created the way it goes on, if its construction could never be synthetic but had to be the construction through analytically conceivable elements of the first order, even if these could indeed occur without further miracle (Slusher, op.cit): it would be different both from the Bible and from what it is ! Creation and operation are by no means synonymous in their modes of action, as we know in numerous aspects, even of human endeavour. That is not a very productive line of thought, although it is a predicted and common one for this current, torrid period of history (II Peter 3:3-5 - see Chs. 9-10 infra). The scoffing uniformitarianism is in view, even when it has some reference to a first 'creation'. Indeed, that is the very meaning which some non-creationists casuistically deploy, as is verifiable from Bird's The Origin of Species Revisited (see pp. 315A-316A infra).

The view one has here adopted, abundantly verified, and constantly more verified, is that the scientifically determined age of the universe has so many different assumptions, discordant results for various hypotheses, suddenly varying insights, vast and challenging elements, philosophical pretensions, exposed or secret, varying from mere seizing of one of a series of possibilities to the implicit assumption that God was not at work and that we are trying to account for what is nevertheless called in many cases, 'creation' without Him... that the only realism for science per se is to say this: we do not know.

The history of thought on this subject seems largely to be one of the revelation of ignorance, and the demonstration of arrogance. It must in all straightforwardness be confessed that one finds it far easier to match all the evidence with a young earth than with an old one; but that the matter should really be one of great care - scientifically. We shall revert to this.

b) Biblical Limits

Biblically, the matter has been traced with some care in Chs. 2, 9 and 10 of this work, with results on occasion slightly different from the norms for the raging contestants; and indeed with some disregard for party-lines. What is entirely clear is this: relative to the age of creation, what can be tested of the Biblical text, by science, is never disauthenticated. What may be contradicted by philosophy, either when in the minds of scientists or of any others, normally does contradict it. But that is neither here nor there; philosophy always contradicts itself as well.

What we have however shown in this work, is this: if reason is consulted, and scientific method is followed, the Biblical position is characterisable thus. It alone is valid, and no logical process, in science or other fields, can or does embarrass it. That is its uniqueness; and it continues, as unruffled as truffles on ice, to have that situation over thousands of years, during which science (and that includes the last few decades) changes its ... opinion as if engaged in a flirtation. It is however not science or scientific method which is so severely embarrassed; it is merely the philosophic rapacities of reckless assumptions from which men, scientists or others, are rarely immune.

In particular, as we have shown in detail in Ch.s 1 and 2, organic evolutionary developments, both Biblically and in terms of scientific method, are flatly and multiply contradicted; while facts and scripture are solidly wedded. Biblically, we have found age allows some variation, but that the age of life on earth allows very little indeed; and this correlates considerably with other items of age.

Science then changes considerably and sometimes elementally; the Bible never has to do so, though it makes the most extraordinarily clear and compelling statements, eminently testable in many fields. Its consistency of record, and unanswerability is as a matter of simple record, unmet by ANY other body of knowledge, over history, whatsoever. That is, for the word of the necessarily sovereign God of creation, precisely what you would expect. It should not discourage human effort; but it should counsel human presumption, a near norm in the field.

c) Ancient Hybrids and Modern Mutations

What however of ancient times ? Before the present surge into numbers games with dating (what Professor Andrews calls at one point, as quoted elsewhere, 'the science of guessing'), what were some of the ancient approaches to Genesis 1 and its majestic declarations of the Almighty God ?

Ross treats some of these (op.cit.), and we shall give a little attention to this field, and its corollaries. We must realise of course that the Greeks had their bearing in education and influence on the thoughts of many scholars. The Greeks ? There were many... seers. Among them, the Milesian philosophers, hilariously universalising monists, monists in water, in air and the like; the Platonists with their movements towards idealism, even for a moment, towards some measure of creationism and degrees of startling variability, as in the Timaeus, where providence has... eyes; the neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, the Alexandrian phiosopher, with their universal hybrid schemes, universalising, allegorising, symbolising; the Jewish philosopher, Philo, whose God was 'unknown', who arranged for spiritually creative 'emanations' and whose thought here is quoted by Ross (pp. 16-18); the Aristotelians with their impersonal and protected God hidden away in contemplation from involvement in a universe where he/it acted as prime mover: ALL these had their effect.

Just as Darwin has had his effect, despite his evidentially barren contest for his general theory, so had these other and ancient philosophers in their time...

Naturally, there were some early church impacts. However even in those quoted by Ross, there is a tendency for the 'thousand years is as a day' approach to the days of Genesis 1, on the part of some; while the early church Bishop Ambrose from the same quotations, is clear in his Genesis 1 24-hour reference, simply and properly allowing the usage of 'day' in appropriate settings, for other purposes, as it is with us. In the thousand year approach, moreover, the time in view is co-ordinate with the life-spans of the first men Biblically addressed, and not of a disproportion wholly alien. Whatever philosophic or fanciful inputs may have affected some here, they did in such cases not wholly violate the sense of the record. This is so, even if at this point, some disregarded with the blinking of momentary little faith, or inadequate application, the clear evidence of the text. The issues, though of real interest, were less pointed than is now the case.

In fact, the case, as the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia points out (vol. 3, p. 302), is that the Alexandrian school, influenced by Philo, tended to disregard time, emphasising that God needed "no more than an instant for the creation of the world". Clement, it is noted, denies that "the world was created in time, since time came into existence with created things", a view closely followed by Augustine at this point, he notably emphasising the conception that "the world was made, not in time, but with time", in his City of God (p. 350, Ch. 11). This he deems to follow from his (very limited) definition of time, though at that, himself strangely ignoring his own definition's clear fulfilment during the processes of the days as they brought the paraphernalia of process into being. Such is the impact of philosophy, which had a major and notorious invasion in the case of Origen. A large insistence on the part of those so influenced is noted in Schaff, such that there was for this school, a conception of a "practically instantaneous" Creation.

This is rather different from the concept of vast ages... as is the "literal interpretation of six days as six periods of twenty-four hours, generally given in orthodox dogmatics from Luther on" (Schaff, loc. cit.) in much post-Reformation work. Indeed, to turn now to J.D. Davis of Princeton, in his famed 4th. Edition (rev.) Bible Dictionary, pp. 157-158, we find this statement relative to the historical emphasis following the Reformation: "During the next 300 years the narrative was understood to mean that God created the universe in one week of seven consecutive days of twenty-four hours each. At any rate, the works of the six days were more than six acts; God spake, to use a significant Biblical term, eight times (verses 3, 6, 9, 1, 14, 20, 24, 26)."

Accordingly, we find in the most scholarly 24 vol. work of Keil and Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament (1864-1868) p. 51, on Genesis:

But if the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, or years of thousands of years, but as simple earthly days.
Matthew Henry in his notable Commentary (1710) states of the first day:
This was not only the first day of the world but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning.
Schaff-Herzog (op.cit., p. 301) also notes of "Judaism Proper" that:
Here not only is the creation of heaven and earth out of nothing strongly emphasized, but special stress is laid on the relative nothingness of weakness of the creature in comparison with God... In harmony with the unconditional supernaturalism... it is not surprising to find the six creative days of Genesis taken in the strict literal sense...
Such matters scarcely affect the current issue of 'time' in utter severance from the Genesis explication; a fresh young earth is still in view, even after 7000 years, for the more 'adventurous' of those noted. Certainly that particular case departs in the instances quoted, though not in the case of Ambrose, from rotational days for the 6 fiats; as it does from the Scripture. It is however not so apparently constrained by a consideration of time needed for evolution in general. At that, with Aristotle behind them, it would scarcely be surprising if some stooped so far. (Aristotle was clear on the fixity of species now, less so on their origination, with the tendency of Plato towards some 'stuff' on which action could occur.) It is to be noted that the 'thousand year' clan moreover are using one scripture on another, rather than obviously alien premises to depart from what is written.

Let us now examine from ancient times, the case of the few Christian 'fathers' noted who so declined from the Jewish orthodoxy preceding Philo with his philosophy, as to step into the 'day as a thousand years' category.

That some so varied is not surprising. It is always a challenge to accept the concept that human birth comes in 9 months, a thought comes in an instant (though the brow be furrowed), a theory of great complexity hits the mental tarmac at times in a moment, that the 5000 were given bread not in a thousand year day, but in a few minutes, that Lazarus was raised from the dead in a cell, not a time capsule; and many have found it hard to see the simple power of God (cf. II Timothy 3:1,5), without which we would not have matter with which to have designs with which to become the fantastic triads we are. When mistaken ideas about evolution pressed on man to make the days of creation either witless pretences on which man's rest is to be premised, or ages of prodigious extent, in which various forces strove away and God demeaned himself, creatively to fool about with the violence, 'vanity' and 'corruption'... what then ?

Then you reach a world which is to assist as a grisly means in its own creation and development of life, instead - as in Romans 8 - of being the recipient of a method of judgment upon it. Then you have an utterly militant approach to the God who made us, and told us what He did. The pollution of penalty on this blaspheming model, appears rather as God's pure preference for instituting and developing life. This is both fearlessly and fecklessly contrary to the principles of Habakkuk 1:1-3, 2:2-4, 3:13-14, Micah 6:1-8, Amos 2:6-16, II Corinthians 8:9, 1 John 1:1-4, 4:7-8, Hebrews 13:8, Proverbs 12:10, 30:6, Romans 8, Jeremiah 7:8-10, Isaiah 11:4-10. Such a god is an idol (cf. pp. 179 ff. supra).

Then is the word of God despised, no more a problem... Then man contests it, pushes it back into His mouth, while enlarging his puny assault forces. Then the word of God is bypassed, the means of creation are equated with a mode of discipline and blasphemy is the pulpiteer. Toying with this scenario is unwise; trifling with time in such philosophic invasions of thought, to allow a different universe with a different scene, a different sin setting and consequence, this too is unwise. When the lava flows, it is best to avoid it, and move elsewhere. While it is hot, it is not helpful.

Now therefore the comparatively mild case of making a thousand years a day, to which we earlier referred, this is not by these means justified. This is not to do that; but it is utterly to differentiate it from the contemporary issues before us. In fact, at this time, as Professor Lubenow (Bones of Contention, esp. Ch. 16, and infra) for one well sums up as in his charts of fossils, and in an arena where Professor Oxnard (supra) has laid due stress, we are in no position to make time the optional matter that Ross would have it, if the Bible is to be followed; and this applies quite apart from the error he made on the topic of death. For homo sapiens remains, on current geological theory of the common type, go back millions of years; and despite Ross, human tracks of numerous kinds, some readily followed step by step (pp. 204-208 supra), go back to vast 'ages'.

The (relatively) trifling vanities of some writers who did not approach Genesis with sufficient contextual fidelity, is irrelevant to the efforts to divorce the text from the word of God and place it in the hands of the materialist receivers, enshrined in their palatial chronological halls, for purposes of their own. The word of God is not available for captivity, and there is no 'peace' in acting in proprietary, manner, as if to harass it, as if it were some Communist prisoner, into conformity to the Party line. And what is that line ? Mere confusion, and ignoring of vast evidences that will not conform to their concepts, while allowing philosophy to masquerade in its presuppositions as if it were the voice of evidence! They did it before; far more now do they repeat the ancient process. It profits nothing.

And what evidences are here ignored ? Evidences contrary to the delusive concepts: biological, geological, mathematical, astronomical, logical, methodological, in design, program, logic, epistemology, linguistics. psychology, morality, history. We can afford no counting of noses (inadequate as even Voltaire showed). We are constrained by the text, and what it may be shown to teach; and by adequate reason.

d) Wedding the Unmarriageable

There were ancient hybrids. There are also modern ones. Let us consider Ross's adventitious combination of creation with uniformitarian travesties of creative power... (They are different in kind, creation from maintenance work, and in the mind of the Creator, infinitely different in kind.) This unhallowed synthetic effort, used to 'date' materials, on the delusive principle that God would not make things appear 'old', is a classic of confusion.

There is no 'appearance' in the circumstance that God may wish to create elements or compounds to some extent derivable in certain processes one from another: direct. Can not even I use composite words, or simpler ones at any time and place, without having to 'create' the complex word every time ? Can not I use prepared steel; or make it at my expense and pleasure ? Can I not synthesise chemicals from elements, or use a natural compound, without there being thought of deception! What 'god' is this who is process-bound! Are we thinking of a projection of a physicist, or of the true God who made all ?

When you have the power, you use what you want, deem good, when you want - make a meal or order one. 'Appearance' may have nothing to do with it - simply preference. The very idea that God has to prepare elements beyond a certain atomic weight by stipulated methods is a perfect one, in one sense only: it is a perfect mix of effrontery and confusion.

As to 'theoretical' derivatives of starlight transmission time, when in fact God may have preferred (as we might at our own level, for any drama to be played, or tableau to be constructed ) to make the scene of a given kind for a given purpose - lit-up like a stage instantly or not: this is mere dalliance, like children telling their parents what to do. If things started thus and so, if the elements went through processes thus and so, if the light was placed thus and so, and the light sources were inter-related in this and that matter when  installed: if ... These datings are merely the parallel of much economic theory: if the model is right in its assumptions, then the mathematics may follow. But is it ? The case is just as it was in the case of Professor Andrews and radioactivity, it is the 'science' of guessing, the science of philosophy.

e) Ignorant Knowledgeability

Transmission times for light cannot therefore, except by purely arbitrary assumption, play any part in determining age. Not only are the creative means and methods separate from the means of maintenance (maintaining a book, in a general parallel, is rather a differing matter from writing one, and the times are most unpredictable for the former and thus for the comparison!); but the placement and phases of complexity of initial materials has all the benefit of being unknown to science.

Indeed, you simply don't know as to the creation

i) its initial dispersion, time of emplacement, or the initial mode of time measurement for that matter.

ii) its initial matter state: whether elements, syntheses or developmental phases, relative to analytical possibilities (*2), mixtures of components, advanced or primary, or indeed transmutative phases or stages unthought of - at will and selection (*3).

iii) its initial creative expansion in the "spreading out" of the heavens - "who stretches out heavens all alone" (as may be indicated by Isaiah 44:24, cf. 40:22, Zechariah 12:1 and Jeremiah 10:12 - "He has stretched out the heavens at His discretion", with scriptural parallels ... a concept stressed by Dr Humphreys).

iv) its initial velocity in various components and their initial irruptive and relative motion as the system was being formed.

v) changes in initial velocities during changes accompanying the energy, mass and space creations in all their phases in the creation.

vi) effectual data compression resulting from these or other changes, inputs, or interactions during creation's erection of processes.

vii) the relevant effects on any radiation where transit time assumed (on a presuppositional, uniformitarian, do-it-yourself basis) exceeds the actual post-institution time of the creation itself.

If you assume everything, you can prove anything; but we are talking of the real world, not of the marvels of imagination; of sober thought, not presumption this way or that. (Cf. pp. 244-245, Ch. 2 S6, 413, 421-422A infra.)

Assume God is a compulsive alchemist, and you go a long way. But that is a pathological assumption concerning deity, excluded as shown in Ch.1 (if anyone needs it to be shown...); and no basis for any scientific work.

In general: to argue from the present, the constituted processes we have, to the past, to the way they were constituted in creation - out of nothing (but not BY nothing) as we have shown to be the case; this is to become a script-writer for God. That is scarcely science, and appalling theology.


a) Script-writers, Ghost-writers and Fact-Finders

Some review of the excellent work of Professor Lubenow, Bones of Contention, can provide some parallel points here.

This writer provides interesting evidence of numbers of scientists who are by no means oblivious to some of the obvious matters of logical principle that have been considered above. Cosmology - frequently the inflammation of concepts and the raising of the temperature of remarks, in merely psychological assurance - is sometimes recognised by scientists for what it is.

Thus in Ch.18 of his work, Lubenow cites numbers of distinguished astronomical experts who with relatively rare and disarming candour, admit the philosophical presuppositions that dominate the conceptual apparatus ("cosmological") ... in which universe dates are.. what ? Are decreed ? demanded ? are dictated ? Ross's Creation and Time (1994) seems an excellent example of the power to decree dates, thus.

Lubenow moves from Sir Arthur Eddington who, in a context of the vast and extending universe, is cited: "There are no purely observational facts about the universe beyond", to Sir Bernard Lovell who on quasars states: "You cannot calculate the distance unless you know what cosmological model applies to the universe," to University of Washington cosmologist, Robert Wagner: "The time-scale is given by the theory of gravity. If we invoke some other theory of gravity, such as the Brans-Dicke theory, the time-scale would be much different", to John Eddy, "one of the world's leading solar astronomers" who is cited: "I suspect we could live with Bishop Ussher's value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence to conflict with that."

This author also dwells on a direct observational record from the sun-neutrino count in an earth-made neutrino trap, constructed to detect transmission of these minute particles from the sun to earth (op.cit. p. 208, incl. ref. to Nature, Nov. 29, 1990). They are far from the theoretically required count; so that Ulrich, of the University of California, Los Angeles, is cited to the effect that the discrepancy between the theoretical neutrino expectations and what is in fact observed is such as to challenge the theory of evolution, so that it cannot simply be relied on. (See  update in this and allied fields, 2008, in TMR Ch. 7, as marked, including the specialised hyperlinks found as you scroll down.)

On p. 211, Lubenow (op.cit.) notes the straightforward fact that in cosmology, distance does not imply a simple measure of time. That, if it were so, would presuppose that creation was not placed, as has been argued earlier. This review of some items of Lubenow's contribution is wholly parallel to the thrust of argument here made, and is an interesting supplement to Dr Slusher's monographs, and other works cited. It illustrates the fundamental principles which have been earlier argued on the basis of logical analysis.

As far as details on dating are concerned, it is of interest that longtime researcher, Dr Russell Humphreys, who has recently been presenting date-related theories with the advantage of predictions that were fulfilled (Creation Magazine, June-August, 1993), in terms of magnetism, noted in interview that about 90% of all the processes available for date measurement for the earth, indicated a young earth... His magnetic theory, concerning an hypothesised initial magnetism for the earth and the solar system, has been verified in its predictions by results obtained after the theory was propounded. Those checks were able to be performed on it, following measurements made from the spacecraft Voyager, for the field strength of Uranus and Neptune. The predictions in each case were astonishingly accurate.

As of course Professor Barnes pointed out, the difficulty in overcoming his (also predictively confirmed) concepts of earth's magnetism is the generation of the field in the first place. As he shows with great care in his Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, no method is known that can be validated; and the 10,000 year maximum age derived for the earth remains firm. Indeed this is supplemented now with great interest, by Humphreys' sensational predictive confirmation on his creationist hypothesis re magnetic fields.

Humphreys' additional work on quick-snap reversal of magnetic fields (postulated for the great flood), with its predictions again confirmed in observational data from thin lava slices, also fails to conform to evolutionary assumptions, but meets the young earth creationist model.

Such is likewise the case in the stimulated zone of ancient DNA preservation. In an article on Ancient DNA and the Young Earth, physician Dr Carl Wieland surveys the scene involved in laboratory analysis of DNA derived from insects trapped in amber, with assigned 'dates' of 25-120 million years. The question of researcher- contamination of specimens is met by subtle differences from modern types, in the DNA; and vigorous, laboratory-oriented criticism of the dating is cited. Thus Lindahl, 1993, Nature, 352:3813, presents a challenge to laboratory work to support contrary contention. The laboratory work has suggested a maximum age of 10,000 years, in view of observable breakdown procedures in DNA. Mention is made of gaseous diffusion expert Harold Hopfenberg at North Carolina University, and his presentation that oxygen could permeate amber 'within weeks', and the force of the preservation fact on the dating alignment becomes even stronger. (See Creation Technical Journal, 8 (1), 1994, pp. 7 ff..)

b) No Bargains in the Basement

Hugh Ross, for his part, sees fit to transmit allegations concerning the startling and long-maintained creationist presentation of Dr Robert Gentry. The notable and extensive specialisation of this worker in polonium (and uranium) halos is met with some indications that despite the decades of devoted, developmental work, and the years of public challenge he has made, Dr Gentry is simply wrong on rock strata. Somehow he failed to notice intrusive rocks that had inserted themselves into the 'pre-Cambrian bedrock' areas (see Gentry, Index), where virtually instantaneous creation seemed indicated.

It had prima facie seemed strange that Ross mentioned no response from Gentry to such a claim concerning his work, so that normal care appeared to warrant personal contact, when speech was possibly denied Gentry in Ross's 1992 book. Procedural caution looked well warranted. Did Gentry discover error in his work; did he accept the allegations made ?

Telephone conversation with Dr Gentry of Earth Science Associates, in Knoxville, Tennessee, has indicated on the contrary, that not one of the assertions is sustained; that he has confirmed his work and concepts in his book (3rd Edition 1992) - Creation's Tiny Mystery, and indeed, that he has engaged, with noted geologist Dr Andrew Snelling, in further field work in New Hampshire. This occurred in the Summer of 1994 and has led to the discovery of additional polonium halos, to add to the earlier list. Gentry since around 1965, moreover, has been able to check with advanced equipment for any sign of heightened uranium concentration near the polonium halos, yet experiments at once failed to show such a thing.

W.R. Bird gives some detail on Gentry's impact on some editors in journals in times past, in this topic area (pp. 404-405, Vol. 2 in Bird's exceedingly detailed work, The Origin of Species Revisited, one of many exhibiting the bankruptcy of Darwinianism). There too rocks resistant to the polonium derived particles, which register as halos or spreading impact marks, seem to resemble some relevant in the field of publicity.

Thus the present writer experienced much the same when in New Zealand, becoming the only representative registering dissent from the anti-Biblical 'resurrection' statement of the 1966 revisionist national Presbyterian Assembly. Though the formal dissent grounds supporting my Assembly move were some 17,000 words in length, NO newspaper would print the simple fact of the formal dissent, officially, publicly and in due order made and registered in that Assembly. However a N.Z. religious newspaper did, so breaking the news world's concerted imposition of the sanction of silence in N.Z. at that time, on the Minister who would not bow - to the works of men who would not bow to the word of God.

Partisan news suppression is not limited to 'other places'... and Gentry's intimations not only of his own interchanges with journals on matters to which they were sensitive, but also of the restrictions placed on one of his critics, made to appear quite different in turn from his intention, is of great value.

Before we proceed, however, with this phase of Gentry's work, it is of further interest to refer to the summary of Gentry's presentation in a Louisiana State University symposium, made by Professor Kazmann as convener. As quoted (pp. 61-62, op.cit.), Kazmann indicated a discrepancy relative to uranium 238 and lead 206 ratios appearing in the coalified wood which was taken from Colorado, and deemed to relate to Cretaceous, Jurassic or Triassic age level. Such 'ages' should imply a very low uranium-lead ratio, Kazmann summarised, yet in fact that ratio in the specimens was very high. If, then, isotopes could be used for dating, he wrote, then on this evidence presently accepted ages could be too high... by a factor of 10,000!

Reverting to the polonium 'basement rock', pre-Cambrian case, that stretches over continents: In Gentry's 3rd Edition of his Creation's Tiny Mystery, he gives in great detail the exposure of false and sometimes merely re-cycled claims, long before shown invalid. In cricket, persistence can be a virtue; in science, when the laboratory evidence is to the contrary, it can be obstruction.

To persist however with the extraordinarily elaborate laboratory work, and with the related hypotheses, in the face of unsustainable contrary conjecture, this can have the virtue of professional integrity and be commendable.

Dr Gentry in particular deals with the sort of hypothesis forwarded by Hugh Ross concerning the creation-day fiat testimony which he had for so long found attested in pre-Cambrian granites (pp. 204, 327-330, 331-338). He indicates, for example, that the hypothesis that the granite had been intruded upon by super-heated invasive rocks fails, because as experimental evidence show, re-crystallisation of granite produces rhyolite; and the halos are in granite, not rhyolite; just as they were, for that matter, characteristically free of fossiliferous material (op. cit., pp. 35, 65-66, 130-131, 153). Mixing of rocks then, under severe thermal intrusion conditions, says nothing of the issue maintained by Gentry: granite with its distinctive features is on the sites with which he is concerned. What is not on site, is the rhyolite re-crystallisation evidence, and despite years of challenge to produce granite by synthesis on rocks, the issue is unmet (op.cit., pp. 332, 314, 280). What is sighted, sited and assessed is in point.

This is the more interesting in view of the claim (videotaped, April 13, 1987) by a Geology Professor of the University of Tennessee that granite could be synthesised - in one week. Not in many years has this challenge been met, or claims confirmed! let alone in one week (give set-up time)!

Experiment merely confirms Gentry's claim to the integrity of the rock in view (both as to what experiment does, and does not show!). He indeed cites confirmatory words from specialists concerning the failure to issue plausible alternatives (op.cit. p. 143). In view of Gentry's claim to have examined around 100,000 radiohalos, "mainly from pre-Cambrian granites and pegmatites located in several continents", it is not without reason that he can claim attention in field and laboratory, to observation.

The persistence of the radiohalo effects in eminently diversified surroundings likewise renders difficult, endeavours to make local conditions paramount or determinative (op.cit., p. 299). Indeed, Gentry points out that the radioactive material and the granite are available; why not then reproduce what is found in nature, by the very means evolutionists (and their date-associates) hypothesise (op.cit. pp. 300-301) ? Yet neither experiment noted as challenge, is performed, whether in a week or after years of research!

Of interest because of its recency, in this area, is an E-Mail letter from Dr Gentry sent in January, 1995. In this, this specialist notes that:

i) Information on polonium halos in White Mountain, New Hampshire finds, was given first in the First International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pa, 1986.

ii) This was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 254, March 1989. It is reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.

iii) Exact locations are a topic for material currently under preparation for publication.

iv) Occurrence of polonium halos is widespread in these granites at White Mountain.

v) Occurrence of polonium halos in granites "of whatever geological nomenclature" remains "unrefuted scientific evidence" for a "virtually instant creation of thee foundation rocks".

Citing an earlier letter of his, he adds data to the following effect:

vi) He has hundreds of samples from all round the world never seen by Wakefield (cited by Ross) - see point ix) infra.

vii) The one case visited with Wakefield was "definitely an example of primordial created granite rock".

viii) Wakefield's interpretation is based on assumptions of slow cooling which "are contradicted by laboratory experimental evidence." This shows that "granites melted in the laboratory never become solidified as granite again, even under conditions of cooling and high pressure".

ix) His results have been published "in the open scientific literature", partly in order to "give... an opportunity to refute those results in the same scientific journals if they" (viz. the readers) "could find something in error". As to this: "Decades have passed and my results stand unrefuted as far as the scientific journals of the world are concerned".

Results placed in journals of another category - not those where his contributions were made - have appeared; and this without laboratory corroboration, but rather the contrary.

This then is a most recent reply from Gentry, most of the substance of which is given in detail in the 1992 edition of his book; along with considerable data and exposition...

Gentry (op.cit. pp. 7, 135) is scarcely a novice in rock structure investigation, and for one surveying his work and statements in some detail, any thought of confusion of dikes and rhyolite with unadulterated granite in the masses of cases, appears an hypothesis of wind. Confusion of rhyolite with granite, however, although it might be one way in which to circumvent this element of Gentry's presentation, is not a laboratory confirmed mode of procedure for the case in hand. The two being different: assumptions which experiment continually confirms for the rock, cannot credibly be reversed for theoretical extravanganzas, where the case does experimentally conform to the notions in view. So moves science. The granite therefore remains rock-hard.

For further and later developments of enduring significance, see


See also TMR, Models and Marvels as marked.


c) The Singular Concept of Creation

Hard too is the mathematical datum - for soft, evolutionary options - of the rate at which the moon adds to its distance to the earth, moving away. This is called lunar 'recession' - and it is measured currently at 5-7 cm. annually.

Even if the initial speed of action had been as slow as is now the case astronomically, that measured rate would land the moon onthe earth in a fraction of the time that evolutionists cite for their always illusory scenario. The moon would naturally not need to be ... so close, before disruption, dispersion or disaster occurred.

Dr Donald B. DeYoung who specifies this datum (Creation, Ex Nihilo, March-May 1995, p. 28) also notes that any concept of the earth 'capturing' the moon, as if it had been an astronomical stray, is contrary to the indications from space probes, sent near to planets in very recent times. Acceleration, like 'the crack of a whip' occurs, not capture. Disintegration is given as the other feasible option for a 'stray' moon concept, one wandering near the earth. To be sure, he observes, the planet Jupiter can capture comets (1994 discovery), but the huge gravity in this case of Jupiter, acting towards these mini-bodies, is the assigned cause. Similarly, Dr DeYoung cites the lunar activism as an index to young age. Unexpected vapour emissions from the moon, and lava flow are not the theoretical expectations for the age in view, but rather for a comparatively youthful body. These elements, with Slusher's re the moon (infra) are, moreover, concordant.

Equally resistant to the long-age hypothesis, as earlier noted, is the time taken, on current indications, for the concentration of different chemicals in ocean water. Morris long ago listed some of these, showing in numbers of cases times (only) in the thousands of years to reach these concentrations. Humphreys in the interview just noted, reveals a personal correspondence challenge to provide any other ground for the extremely low sodium content in the oceans in particular. No alternative solution to these results arrived (i. e. for the young earth 'problem' facing evolutionists, covering the low level of dissolved salt); none showed how the old-age earth hypothesised could have had its ocean lose the necessary salt, to account for the low concentration in terms of rate of input in view.

As in the low measurements in the solar neutrino case, in the moon rock deformation case of Slusher's computations, in the earth's heat loss rate case, the earth's magnetic past case, so in that of the ocean solutions, there is one great advantage: we have observations relating, and theory not based on assumptions that in the first place beg the very question at issue.

The concept recalls the interview, earlier cited with Dr Humphreys. This revealed an hypothesised cause of the slight shimmer in microwave radiation, frequently associated with the Big Bang concept. This was made prior to that of the Yale scientists noted above: it was a 1971 Russian hypothesis, to the effect that the slight shimmer in radiation, or variation, would not be sourced in the radiation origin, but be added by large gas clouds through which the radiation would in due course come; and they further indicated that if this were the cause of the shimmer, then the size of it would be correct for the assumptions made.

While we are on these points, let us add some items of interest. Thus, the Time note of Nov. 28, 1994 on the notorious 'missing mass' to which term we have made reference earlier with Dr Slusher, provides more detail to this effect. Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope found that as to the 'invisible cosmic stuff', dark matter - 'religiously' believed to make up for 90% of the universe's mass - the faint 'red dwarf' stars speculated as a means to supplying this long-term universe requirement, are found 'much scarcer' than thought. Attempts to square 'long-standing predictions' about the mass of the universe with 'observable data' will have to focus on other exotica' such as the existence of 'unknown elementary particles', we read.

'Missing mass' of course would be so only if the universe were not young and in particular, not created. As a young, created universe, its mass as observed is merely a case of observable data in conformity with that fact. That in turn is what would normally be described as verification.

Dr DeYoung, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, in his work, Astronomy and the Bible, 1989, also notes re formation of new stars - that such has never been observed (p. 76), as does Slusher; so that calling such a phenomenon (philosophical phenomenon ?) into service to 'account' for the residual spirals of spiral nebulae or the containment of clusters of galaxies, in terms of projected dispersal time and age of the universe, is a speculative suggestion. Moreover, it is the opposite of what is observed in the contemporary universe, and is fraught with theoretical problems (DeYoung, loc.cit.).

No doubt if it were observed (*4) - rather than wishfully wrought into unusual but inadequate spectacles - then data relative to hypotheses on this basis could be a criterion for theoretical considerations of some weight. These might then enable sounder models for mathematical constructions, subject to critical review, competitive modelling and presuppositional analysis. DeYoung notes the Orion Nebula, a flowing gas cloud, but indicates diverse hypotheses are available in seeking to account for the infra-red radiations escaping from the gas and dust of the situation there.

If stars are not forming, then any idea that comets are being made as a byproduct of star formation is likewise non-applicable, and Slusher's point on their origin remains. Short-term comets, like Halley's, says DeYoung (op. cit. p. 46), have been observed, Halley's back to 240 B.C., with 28 orbits - and with its remaining years 'definitely numbered'. Of course short-term, like other comets, must all be accounted for (*4), with some mental athleticism visible in that 'needed' direction, as we saw earlier relative to the 'cloud' of them, which has never had the ostentation to confirm itself to actual observation. (On theoretical problems with comet origin, except in the case of a young earth, see Slusher: Age of the Cosmos, Ch. 8.)

Similarly, Slusher (The Origin of the Universe, p. 39) speaks of 'star clusters', smaller groups than galaxies, 'breaking up due to high speeds of the component stars' overcoming the gravitational attraction. He states that if their motions were projected backwards to what would appear a starting point, in some cases the cluster's origin is a matter of thousands of years. Since no sure knowledge of formation of new stars exists (Slusher, DeYoung), this is as important as is the diversity of star 'age' on evolutionary theory, relative to expectations (op. cit. Slusher 38-39).

Not only are some of the apparently oldest galaxies (on expansionist lines) similar in composition to youngest ones, but there is indication that the 'stellar medium' between the stars has 'hardly changed at all' in the 'time' between the relatively 'recent' formation of a Bo star, and the immensely 'ancient' formation of a red giant or the planetary nebulae. This is to say no more, not an impressive testimony to any 'chemical evolution', any gradualistic, uniformitarian, alchemist obsession about the commencement of things, as in the Big Bang, and some theosophical parallels.

No less contrary is the presence of the Great Wall (Mehlert, op.cit., p. 213) of massive galactic structures, ostensibly near to the original 'explosion' (or implosion) time, which many consider mathematically inept, making too many demands on time and form, and contrary to all rational expectation. The ineptitude of course, is for the theory wedded to such developmental hypotheses. Later research (Creation Magazine 1994, 17:1, p. 9) merely exacerbates the situation for devotees, revealing far more intricate "lengthy arcs of galaxies", indeed a Southern parallel to the earlier Northern Wall (Science, Vol. 263, March 25, 1994 - p. 1684). All of these developments, with stated expectations of yet more such discoveries, provide the expected anti-verification of the evolutionary expand-and-form concept, implicit.

Further, the appearance of radial expansion at enormous speeds, in the case of galaxy pairs or multiples (galaxies most significantly are evidently never alone! - Slusher op.cit., p. 37), bridged by luminous matter, suggests lack of gravitational attachment and a 'quick' separation in a (hence) young earth scenario. With similar constraints, Slusher notes numerous galaxies - in the case of a 'well-isolated' group or cluster of them - appear to have total mass smaller than required to prevent rapid disintegration (loc.cit.) of the clusters.

Indeed, the Great Wall(s), the intricate patterns, the reluctant separations, the aggregate trends are all in accord with a created collation, with all the blatant disregard for 'chaos' that creation normally has - whether it be by God or man.

In line with all this Creation Magazine (June-August 1993, p. 8, cf. Scientific American, Oct. 1992, p. 15), two Yale scientists have argued that they had a basis for the ultra-minute shimmers or 'bumps' in the micro-wave radiation in which the earth appears bathed (and which may in fact have been associated with the initial blasting into being through creation, of the universe). Even these infinitesimal fluctuations in the background radiation - itself appearing distressingly smooth to evolutionary or rationalistic Big-Bangers - they indicated, could be caused by gravity waves, an item predicted by general relativity. On this basis, the 'bumps' were not even associated with the 'original' event. Not starting but - in a figure - transmission static would be the ground of the mini-modulation. Thus even these variations, relating to millionths of a degree, would not be relevant to the issue of origins.

To complete the contradictions, Troitskii the Russian astrophysicist noted earlier, proposed a near infinite value for the initial velocity of light, arguing this to be not contrary to established physical principles. Such a phenomenon would ... help in the question of the prodigious energy required for transmission to earth, if quasars are as distant as red-shift motion theories indicated. This point of Troitskii is of course, quite apart from the bitterly contested issue of any more recent variability in light velocity, which into the nineties has not been susceptible to any simplistic solution, in the technical interchange; as equally to the question of the general characteristics of materials in the creation-stage dynamics.

It is in particular vain to insist on static rules for the initial dynamic creation complexes of constantly varying ingredients; and the divine fiat work of a very short period may have few time-related ingredients to disperse to us, at astronomical levels. Clearly if this background radiation is that of creation's irruption into being, such 'smoothness' accords as well with such an origin as does the 'missing mass' in its various dimensions, the 'great galactic walls', the neutrino deficiency, the anomalous similar star compositions, and the apparently rapid transition of one of the Sirius stars (over 1000 years of observation, rather than millions being required) from red giant to white dwarf (DeYoung, op.cit., pp. 63-64).

d) Multiplication in the Cosmological Culture

Indeed, so vast are the variables of the various cosmological theories, so intense are the mutual criticisms of the exponents, so considerable the contrary evidences to which each exposes the other, often so vehement the mutual charges, that precise read-outs can at times become difficult since on one cosmology, a suggested error might stand but be accommodated in another, which in turn may have its own... difficulties; and so much is being found that it is increasingly clear that the controversies themselves are often in the area of ignorant explosions without the principles required to temper them into cogent thought.

In this, perhaps, they resemble more and more the various explosions, and implosions, gravities (their cause ? - forget it: why be difficult!) and other inter-acting and putatively inter-acting, obviously hypothetical and hypothetically obvious events, non-events, quasi-events, virtual events which mark out the cosmological landscape of those whose 'red-shift' from the Creator is definitely one of distance! There is however no such endless jangling for the creationist who does not 'need' magically to 'derive' from current assumed, proposed or actual inter-actions and reactions, the initial creation and structuring. While there is however no such need, it is of interest to observe the recent proposals of Dr Humphreys.

Dr Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University, has proposed a cosmological model including the assumption of a bounded universe, instead of the philosophical postulate of a boundless one. Using common relativity concepts and equations, he moves to a further approach to starlight and time, one leading to a young earth result. In particular, he postulates a rapid expansion of space (*2) with its contents, that relates to Einstein's gravity equations. Though such a concept is not necessary to Biblical creationism, which does not work on the slide-rule at creation and its episodes, yet it is of much interest in following events.

What makes this addition to the cosmology family of special interest is the fact that Biblically, all unbounded cosmos concepts have a theological list to stern, for the thrust of their thought. A bounded cosmos concept therefore is more consistent with creation.




a) Bounded by the Boundless, Physical Containment by Spiritual Presence

Thus since, as the Bible clearly indicates to be the case, God knows all the stars by name (Isaiah 40:26), how could this be, if by definition every such knowledge in an infinite system or cosmos, must have more items, ad infinitum... Surely He can know them by non-serial means; but it is not conformable to the concept of mathematical infinity to have it contained; and moreover, the expression quoted appears to be in the domain of the numberable, in a sequential sense. This same passage in Isaiah also states of the heavens, the heavenly bodies, that God "brings out their host by number", which is not consistent with what has no number.

A finite cosmos is thus indicated. We do well in consistency exercises to work on such a basis, in terms of creation. Indeed, a working model, conformable to Biblical specifications with multi-point harmony is a verification not only through consistency, but by contrast with other models' performance!

Further, there appear as necessary, limits to all creation. Ontologically creation has been demonstrated in this work, to be derivative from the Creator. Hence it is dependent on the being of Another. Materially, it is dependent on the creative input of Another; operationally, on the volition of Another. It has barriers of He-it at every turn, and hence cannot be boundless.

Even if you say: Can He not make it boundless ? the answer is this - He cannot deny Himself (as II Timothy 2:12 specifically declares). HE is there, the God of truth. Indeed, the concept of His making what He by definition could not assess, what had magnitude beyond Him, is simply alien to His word. It does not relate to the Biblical model.

Even if you urge: His existence is not a spatial item... This is so, but space per se is a created, crafted and sustained item, not an autonomous extension of dominion. Just as magnets may surround and maintain a force field, derived from them, and so in this sense bound by them (in whatever spatial format or formula), so God bounds the cosmos. It is not a physical bound due to spatial proximity; but it is rather an ontological boundary, with its etiological, volitional and dispositional bounds (cf. Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17). Derived, it depends, dependent, it is expressive; expressive of what ? Of infinity ? but that is His Word. Expressive of derivation ? yes, and in the mind of man, its derivative status co-exists with one whose status is derivative in turn.

Time, as demonstrated, serial, created, astronomical time started - and this mode ends (Revelation 20:11, 21:1). As correlative to space, time also limits that dimension. As having the potential for serial occurrences, space is their correlative and an incumbent means, systematically incorporated in their domain. If space were such that it could not be increased, that would limit God. Rather God limits space. Indeed, any concept that space were infinite, defined in its own kind as without bounds, this would mean that by any method, its bounds could not be found (they were not there).

The 'boundless' concept is not merely one of correlation to counting; it is making a statement about what is deemed an objective 'fact', what the nature of the thing is: that it has no bounds. Thus, if spatial bounds were consistently conceivable, that would contradict this premiss of physical boundlessness. In the definitive infinity of God, the absence of physical bounds is not so conceivable for any part of His creation, whether in space or time, in that this by definition would put their magnitude beyond God; which limits His power. Hence by definition, space, like astronomical time is limited. Its ambit is first the creating, and then the sustaining power of God who is a Spirit, and creates material things in whatever packets and packages, whether quanta or codes, whether geometrical or chronological, He pleases. Like a book for us, He can pick it up and put it down by His own spiritual power.

Space like astronomical time,  is simply a creation. Its bounds are not, obviously, spatially conceived, as if space being in question, it is assumed not to be in question, an infantile error, nevertheless seemingly engaged in by Kant, owing to the confusion of his inconsistent premises (see Ch.5). Its bounds are determinate through the spiritual power of the One who invents material action, book and cover, time and space, in whatever code of dimensionality He sees fit; the dimensions themselves being inventions and derivatives, carved out like sentences in our own minds, with a length of being which has always the alternative option of not existing, or being shorter. These are different in kind from matter, where error is irrelevance; and their domain is other. (Cf. Predestination and Freewill, Section IV, and Ch.1 supra, esp. pp. 18-32.)

So God's created domains are doing just what they are told in scope and existence, size and interactive options, while they are so ordained. Time and space are no exceptions, being merely a contemporary hypnotic for materialistically obsessed minds, which cannot break these horizons to contemplate the majesty of their author, who upholds all things by the word of His power, as He says, being unlimited by the nexus which demands adequate origin, and operating with a self-sufficient and disposing causality which can have no bounds imposed, either by 'necessity' which is a contrivance to avoid God, who makes necessary what is necessary, or by any other means, temporal or eternal.

He is what He is, not what constraints might like to make Him. These are His offspring, His derivatives, and all depend on Him, who is free of it all. As for time, space and their domain, there has been shown to be a necessary and adequate cause in their creation, so is there in their sustaining, their scope of interaction and in the parameters they hold, while history pulses, if by any means any may seek Him and find Him, in this little tent which He has made. Though it be made, yet He has made it so well that it inspires, however unwisely some minds idolatrise the inspirational display, leaving in blindness its source, like a man who refuses to know the author of his book, lest it be spoilt by the contemplation of the concrete reality of ... the one who wrote it!

b) The Sublime Stability of Divine Speech

Such limited cosmos concepts therefore are consistent with the Biblical depictions, whereas no cosmology without Him is consistent whether with itself or with the necessities of causation, as exhibited in Chs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 in this work. Hence the cosmologies multiply, contend.

As autonomous cosmologies clash, the time-date derivatives look on without passport, like war orphans - with unseeing eyes. This is the penalty of secular man. No wonder he is lonely. Meanwhile harmony both with the multitude of processes, resolutely pursued, and with the word of God, implies a youthful universe, with light and life of recent creation.

Nor is cosmology alone. The impressive observational fact is that the conceptual clustering of cosmologies is now aping that of organic evolution. Each appears to proliferate, being exposed to the strenuous resistance of data to hypothetical manhandling. This has led to a multitude of competing theories, discordant and assured, clashing, frequently contradictory, in both of these areas. Here, as there, the creationist is not confronted in these or other ways by data, and is relatively in repose.

In fact, pompous pronouncements of "science" or the "scientific community" are often made with such bathetic humour that one might almost think that only man, made by God with a dash of freedom - could consider them for one moment. While scientists clash, some mysteriously declare - this is it! The endless 'assured' theoretical constructions based on data often belligerent for any pagan view, is best given the comment of history, which bypasses so many of them so often, and so soon.

A decade is long - in this scientific setting. The word of God on the other hand, has no problem with history, having stood wholly unabashed for some 3.5 millenia. That energy and stability is but one of its many verifications (cf. Isaiah 33:6). And it ? For those who follow it to its source, it leaves no orphans! (John 5:39-40, 14:18). Accordingly here also we continue to contrast secularist squalor and divine splendour; and in particular, the chaos of cosmology and the constancies of God.

When you reflect, as shown in Chapters 1, 3 and 10 of this work, that without the self-revealing and KNOWN God, you cannot even know any perspective, objectivity, truth itself, why then the mixed mini-cream-of-cosmology, mass-produced conceptions that lather the earth, merely illustrate this (*3). Every place they put the foot - it moves; except and until, and indeed to the extent that they put it on the revelation of God, that rises like rock amid the bubbling concoctions (cf. pp. 43-64, 88-91, 100-101 supra, 262-265, 267-268, 307-311, 348-349D, 989-1001 infra). Historically they bubble; it stands. Logically, that is only to be expected. In terms of scientific method, that is verification. In the current confusion of contemporary cosmology, there is superb verification.

That orphanage is full.

For more on this theme and topic, including update,
see TMR Ch. 7, esp. Section E, and associated references, provided with this article.   In particular, you may wish
to consult these   updates.


Endnotes for Supplement (EN#)

*1 The Plagues of Egypt, and the Plight of Earth

Thus in Egypt the plagues of the recalcitrant Pharoah, and of the useless gods: these held pictographic, illustrative, or even paralleling features (Exodus 9:13-18, 4:21-23, 7:2-6, 8:19, 9:14-15, 10:7). These were explicitly instructive, directly didactic, and could even mirror the madness of man with the handglass of horror.

This later Egyptian instance, within the initial curse on earth, was one of focus and concentration. Meanwhile now, the recalcitrant world (I John 5:19, Revelation 9:20-21, II Timothy 3) like Pharoah (Revelation 15:1-4, 17:14, 16:14, Exodus 15:1-4,11, Micah 7:18), a world to which God has sent, this time, His everlasting Son, similarly declines to accept, and is similarly plagued and declining (Revelation 9:10-21, cf. Amos 4, Matthew 24:7) while it persecutes the body of this rejected Son (Revelation 6:10): a body which in its time, God also will remove in the ultimate "Exodus" (Matthew 24:21-22,36-42, Revelation 15:1-4, 11:12), similarly at the extremity. Like Pharoah, it is well warned (Exodus 4:23, Matthew 25:1-13), and from first to last, it is all interpreted.

*2 Space for Time and Time for Space

The reader may wish to consult: pp. 18-36, 75, 125, 161, 252F; S16, S20-21 supra, and 422E-O infra.

Part of Humphreys' cosmological model is this: an irruptive expansion of space itself, hence distancing objects or extending the spread of illumination with meta-velocity, free far beyond any (real or imaginary) constraints of the velocity of light (Starlight and Time, pp. 98, 99). All this is conceived in a limited system; and in this he employs concepts from General Relativity Theory.

This research scientist sees good possibilities that many areas, harassing problems for current or 'conventional' theories, will be resolvable on the basis he presents in this model (op.cit. pp. 127-128). His successful and superior results in predictions in cognate areas have already been noted (S22 supra).

Moreover, we must go further. Beyond present process: insurgencies of space or time, institutive components, those of or engaging initial process indeed, are all clamant possibilities. Present process and rate: this is merely an approach to time that relates to a given status quo. The assumption that this must be identical with, or even wholly cognate with the actions of institution itself, is rigorously irrelevant, and from the point of view of logic, it is a riotous solecism. (Cf. Ch. 1 supra, Ch. 3 infra.) This it is, both per impossibile and as reckless assumption, made without the constraining matrix of logic (or indeed of anything else!).

To illustrate conceptually: If a poem be written, the ageing of paper or the slow blurring of print over time, these are matters categorically different in nature and as rates, from the deposition rate and manner, occurring when the poem was written.

Indeed, creation and maintenance considerations are separated by a conceptual and operational gulf. Their sightless confusion, in rate and time questions, illustrates merely the renegade remorselessness of irrationalism. No doubt it would have taken a very long time indeed, to write the poem itself, if its rate of deposition in terms of print colouring and letters, were forced to resemble its rate of loss in those features. Such imported constraints constitute operational fantasy, and this has always led to insoluble conundrums, precisely as many other imaginative iridescences, when primary considerations are, with debonair disregard or de rigueur ideological recklessness, confused.

A  CAVEAT . . .

In the setting of this paragraph, an Endnote seems appropriate. The matrix of maintenance is not the measure of its creation; nor is the majestic grandeur of the act of creation in its soaring immensity to be equated with the mere pulse of its product. Institution of this terrestrial reality, wrought with brilliance and plan, with interweaving of created products in their apt relationships, once they are formed - some being more malappropriate than others for earlier use, were they immersed in the structural stage: it is a work sui generis. It overarches the mere continuation of constitution, once it is made, as a rainbow overarches the earth.

The irruption of a new reality from the celestial magnificence of God, the explosion into being like the roar of a volcano, runs differently from the congealed result. Then indeed we touch the INSTITUTION of things far more absolute than mere formation. It is still a further stage removed from that - as it is from the case of the metal being formed for a car with its related systems, in an automobile factory: and these operate when they are formed, to the touch of the task before them. Creation is institution of the forms themselves, the modes and the matériel, at times with simultaneity, at times with movements; and with this, their fashioning into formats of the forms.

Who shall then prescribe laws for creation, or limit institutive acts without parallel, paradigm or comparison for the children of men ? Only the thoughtless, whose finitude aspires to the intelligence and the methods of the Creator, whose understanding is infinite! Who again shall put a compass upon His power ? And that, indeed such aspirations as that, they are an exercise in vanity, not in logic. Modes within development may be studied, once the constructions course according to their created modes; but limitation on the acts of institution itself is the obfuscation of blindness.

Thus at Creation, by divine act, light may be declared to and at any, or every point - and this by any selected means, media or direction; and that at any phase or phases, or with entire directness - wholly separated from light's self declaration. This it makes upon arrival with the forms and impulsions chosen, as it alights from creative formatting, from the marvels of its fashionings, with due introduction, into the arena of time. To this place, it is despatched in a way apt for the purposes of its celestial conceiver and Creator.

*4 To find anything producing the rather evanescent-seeming short-period comets (Slusher, Age of the Cosmos, pp. 43ff.; cf. pp. 170, 243ff. supra), at an appropriate distance from earth for their survival long enough to be able to appear for us, remains a task unaccomplished. They therefore continue to show young teeth for the universe. The real flux in the universe is philosophy-cosmology: a condition normal when health is declining, and knowledge insufficient to restore it. The word of God has the knowledge; and shows it with its constancy, consistency and adequacy on all topics in association with the immense data provided. While that is only to be expected (and exacted in due test) when God is the author, it is refreshingly unique for even a little time; the more so when the performance is put up over three and one half millennia. How it excels human science!

Previous Section | Contents Page | Next Section