Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Who is Radar, anyway? Why the horror and magic of Darwinism is not science!

"After 150 years, Darwin’s sacred imposter—natural selection—still stands as the only accepted alternative to the design of God in nature. It is presented in most schools as absolutely true in spite of its ill-defined basis, its invisible operation, and the fact that there is no real “selector”—because attributes inherent to organisms actually do all the work. These warnings should influence creation scientists to step back and re-evaluate this convoluted evolutionary idea." - Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza

Soon I will have put in six years and begin on year seven of writing this blog.  It seems like a long time.   I might have another six or seven years left, who knows?  I write for other blogs from time to time but this one is my online ministry to Darwinists and confused Christians so I give it more time than any others.   Before I post one of the best overviews I have read on the basic problems with the magical Darwinist usage of the term natural selection, I will reminisce a bit.

The name "Radar" came from a playground nickname playing hoops.  I mean not little kids, but playing with teenagers and young men downtown, most of whom were quite black whereas I am a blue-eyed guy whose hair turned blonde in the summers so it was not easy to be accepted into that world.   That is an earned nickname I appreciate.   I was also called Caveman for my tackling style and wild long hair and beard in my early twenties, Milo Minderbinder when I was a motor pool clerk in the Army who did a lot of horse trading with other clerks and Bad News for a series of misadventures and calamities associated with me, also in my twenties. 

When you get to be old enough you do consider the concept of the "bucket list" and as I perused what mine might have on it, I realized that I have done almost everything I wanted to do.  I found my true love of my life.  I had a family of children I love and now grandchildren.  I was a professional writer.  I was the lead singer of a rock band(s).   I won a few tournaments in individual sports (tennis, volleyball, foosball and badminton) and played organized basketball and football so I know the thrill of performing in front of your girlfriend and your buddies.  I am a teacher.   I have worked in multiple ministries.   I've been to Hawaii and climbed Diamondhead and stood on the Pearl Harbor Memorial and seen the oil slick on the water.   I've climbed mountains.  I have been to most of the States in the USA and also stuck my toes into Mexico and spent some time in Canada and Alaska.  There was even a time I had a good amount of disposable income and could buy and drive a sports car.   There was a time in my childhood when my family was considered rich and I was too young to know it.  I've known luxury and I have known great popularity and both of them are somewhat dangerous as it happens.  I have experienced real poverty when I had to stand in line for government cheese and cut down trees to sell for firewood to afford to rent a hunk-of-junk house and buy fifty dollar cars from the junkyard and fix them up to run for a year or two. 

I was born with natural hand-eye coordination and 20-10 eyesight. On the other hand I have been in accidents that mean that my life is constant pain and it is foreseeable that it will not change.   I already take enough drugs to put down a horse just to function so more narcotics is a no go.   My doctor wanted me to take hydrocodone AND oxycontin!!!  Nope.  Sticking with what I have.  In time you learn to deal with pain and it becomes a default setting.   I am quite fortunate or blessed to be alive and able to walk.   I have all my four limbs still, although one may need amputation a few years down the road.  Nerve damage that is irreversible may lead to complications as I age more.   I looked about 30 when I was 40.  Now I am almost 60 and I grew a beard so I look like my age or close to it.   I do not care, my wife likes my beard so it stays.   I only want one woman for the rest of my life and I am married to her.

Now that I am older I realize I would love to have concentrated on science or history but I was drafted into the military after my freshman year of college (only in 1972 was this done) and it changed everything.   I have been a drug dealer and a junkie and a drunk and Christ transformed me into a caring father and husband and a guy who has worked with teenagers for many years.   Also I have become an amateur scientist (that used to be the only kind) much to the frustration of a few Darwinist commenters.  I am an IT professional and work with small and medium businesses usually although the number of larger ones is growing.   It is a job I can do without needing to stand or walk around or commute, so it will have to do.

I am horrified at the Federal Government we have now, bloated beyond measure, and the Chief Executive who is the worst I have known.   But I usually save politics for the political blogs.   Here I am dealing with the utmost horror of all - Darwinism.  So now another informational article:

Darwinism - a horror show

Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Recognizing Missed Warning Signs

In order for a human brain to “see” something external, the data patterns captured by the eyes must be associated with related patterns stored in memory. When they match, the mind accurately perceives things. Thus, prior education greatly influences the correctness of what people see…or are blind to.
Liberty University paleontologist Dr. Marcus Ross referenced this type of flawed knowledge-based blindness as affecting the failure among creation scientists to look for soft tissue in Flood-deposited fossils:
And honestly, no young-earth creationists expected soft tissue to be found in dinosaurs. Perhaps that expectation was an artifact of our training (which is often in evolution-dominated schools). Sometimes evolutionary assumptions are in places we haven’t recognized.1
The lesson? Regularly evaluate all scientific ideas to ensure they are not rooted in unrecognized false assumptions and are instead fixed in reality. Case in point: “natural selection.”

Do the words “natural” and “selection” in any verifiable way accurately describe observable interactions between an organism and its environment? Have the words “natural” and “selection” been effectively employed to divert attention away from recognizing where the power to solve environmental problems really resides—i.e., strictly within well-designed innate capabilities of organisms? Is there a fixation on the apparent self-evident “selection” impacting a population of organisms, with disregard for the fact that the “selector” is simply a mental perception and not grounded on reality?

Since no ideas are exempt from scrutiny, it does help that those ideas grounded on false conjectures are frequently surrounded by warning signs.

Warning 1: Natural Selection Mysteriously Defined

Warning signs are key to identifying flaws in concepts. Ask critical questions, such as: Is the concept too slippery to define? Does the idea have little empirical evidence? Is this concept so plastic that it could very well explain conflicting observations? These are some of the very problems with the concept of natural selection, prompting one leading authority to acknowledge:
Natural selection has always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory. Many people who have no problem with evolution bridle at the thought that it’s all driven by a mindless and unguided natural process….[N]atural selection wasn’t widely accepted by biologists until about 1930. The main problem was, and still is, a paucity of evidence….It’s this difficulty that leads Dawkins to observe that natural selection is on wobblier legs than the other tenets of evolutionary theory.2
A survey of research documents reveals no consensus definition of natural selection. Darwin regularly called it a power.3 In a single paper, some sentences use natural selection as a cause and others as an effect.4 Some authorities say it is only a process,5 or a law, mechanism, or concept. A British expert on natural selection states the problem concisely:
A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment: what kind of a thing is natural selection anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these things? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered by the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither.6
The ill-defined nature of selection contributes to fundamental, yet profoundly unanswered, questions by serious researchers. What does selection operate on? What exactly is natural selection doing at any moment to organisms? How does natural selection actually modify organisms via descent with modification? Is anything measurable at work? If selection is a process, do the conditions specified for its occurrence actually differ from the unfolding of abilities inherent to organisms themselves? Can this term be used ubiquitously in scientific literature and yet the term itself explain nothing? Something may certainly be real that dodges definition, has little evidence, or explains little, but those attributes are a stronger case against reality.

Yet another familiar warning that something may not be real is when “it” gets shrouded in ambiguous yet very emphatic statements of insistence, like “informed people know it’s real,” “it’s simply a phenomenon,” or “it’s just biblical.” A good example is when a prominent atheist protested attributions of non-real abilities to selection by insisting, “Selective breeding is something that somebody does. But natural selection is not; it is something that just happens.”7

Surprisingly, that common conclusion is echoed by creationists, such as one who contended, “Natural selection does not select anything; it simply happens.”8 Is the conclusion “it happens” scientifically satisfying? Shouldn’t that raise red flags about the validity of selection? And shouldn’t researchers be prompted to look for better explanations?

Warning 2: Natural Selection Contradicts Biblical Truth

This warning is obscured due to confusion about what natural selection is expected to do for evolutionary theory. Darwin made natural selection’s importance clear in his seminal book, where he maintains that selection explains origins. Striking squarely at God the Designer, natural selection is the evolutionist’s way to explain the origin of life’s design without appealing to God. Natural selection isn’t merely something to explain biological diversity. It plainly asserts that there is no intelligent design, that claims to such are lies, and what people see that looks like real design is all an illusion of design. Leading evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne boasts of selection’s power to dismiss intelligent design:
Everywhere we look in nature, we see animals that seem beautifully designed to fit their environment, whether that environment be the physical circumstances of life, like temperature and humidity, or the other organisms—competitors, predators, and prey—that every species must deal with. It is no surprise that early naturalists believed that animals were the product of celestial design, created by God to do their jobs.
Darwin dispelled this notion in The Origin. In a single chapter, he completely replaced centuries of certainty about divine design with the notion of a mindless, materialistic process—natural selection—that could accomplish the same result. It is hard to overestimate the effect that this insight had not only on biology, but on people’s world view. Many have not yet recovered from the shock, and the idea of natural selection still arouses fierce and irrational opposition.9
Coyne recognizes that the reach of natural selection into Christian theology is far deeper than just thoughts on diversity. He knows that “certainty” about divine design is crushed by a total substitute for the Divine Designer, a truth his colleague Douglas Futuyma correctly identifies:
Before Darwin, the adaptations and exquisite complexity were ascribed to creation by an omnipotent, beneficent designer, namely God, and indeed were among the major arguments for the existence of such a designer. Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) concept of natural selection made this “argument from design” completely superfluous. It accomplished for biology what Newton and his successors had accomplished in physics: it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design.10
In absolute contrast, Romans 1:19-20 teaches that people can know—and are accountable to know—that God is the originator of nature’s design:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Key words are related to design, not biology. Everyone has seen that something that was created invariably had a creator, so the penetrating power of this biblical truth is that anybody in any culture at any time is capable of arriving at some true knowledge of God…not just people with Ph.D.’s in biological sciences.

To arrive at the true conclusion about God based on His creation, 1) people must truly affirm the reality they “clearly see”—namely, His intricate designs; and 2) must not falsely affirm seeing something that is not real—in this case, design abilities ascribed in times past to inanimate idols, or to present-day non-volitional things like Mother Nature, selfish genes, or natural selection. “Natural selection” induces thinking that fails both truth tests.

Creation scientists study the claims of evolution very carefully, but have often missed the significant role natural selection has played in chipping away at biblical truth.

Warning 3: Ascribing Intelligence Where None Exists

Naturalists, as noted above, know the immense hurdle they face in selling evolution: People “bridle at the thought that it’s all driven by a mindless” process. Charles Darwin’s extraordinarily difficult task was to find a source of intelligence—a substitute god—to explain how all of life could display countless features that clearly look like they were chosen for specific purposes by intelligence—but not God’s intelligence. “Natural selection” was his extraordinarily clever explanation.

People know that to “select” something is presumptive evidence of volition—a special choice-making capacity implicit in intelligence. Therefore, the word “select” is supremely important to Darwinism. By it, intelligence is appropriated from the living world and ascribed to non-thinking (but now selective) nature. His stroke of genius deflected attention away from an organism’s God-given power to reproduce heritable and variable traits that happen to fit changing environments, and invalidly labeled that as a selection of “nature.”

How could Darwin convince multitudes to accept a selection event without a real selector? By subtly flipping the attribution of power at the organism-environment interface from the proper place of the organism’s DNA and reproductive mechanisms to the environment instead. He extrapolated the idea that nature could make choices, which allows the conclusion that nature possesses a sort of innate intelligence. Darwin had effectively injected the attribute of intelligence into non-volitional nature—a feat many thought impossible.

Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the science literature from both evolutionists and creationists is rife with explanations that ascribe willful abilities to environments that not only “select” organisms, but also “favor,” “weed out,” “deem beneficial,” “punish,” and so on. Advocates of selection defend using these words as simply figures of speech or metaphors akin to how human breeders select for livestock traits.

However, two major problems oppose this thinking. First, “selection” doesn’t have a real mind analogous to a human breeder. Second, falsely ascribing choice-making ability to environments is the only believable way to promote the creative illusion that nature really does have a type of intelligence. And not just a simple intelligence, nature is portrayed as somehow thinking—a talented stand-in god that always “selects” the best traits and “saves” them to “build” things.

Warning 4: Metaphor Replaces Empirical Evidence

As Dr. Coyne noted, natural selection was resisted for decades by most scientists and is still not fully embraced due to an absence of empirical evidence. There is no evidence lacking that organisms generate traits that fit changing environments. But evidence is absent for a real “selector” or real selecting actions, given that “select” is the key word that gives natural selection its power. Lacking this evidence, evolutionary proponents of selection will, like Darwin, inevitably ease acceptance by appealing to the powerful analogy of artificial selection to natural selection. However, without evidence for a real selector, a continuous use of metaphors should be another warning for creation scientists to begin re-evaluation.

Darwin’s 1859 articulation of this analogy (still being promoted) is possibly the best:
I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts.11
The difficulty with this analogy is the lack of anything in the environment that corresponds to the operation of a human mind. Nevertheless, taking the analogy as self-evident, Darwin’s metaphor describes natural selection’s “operation” with idealized god-like attributes:
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers.12
Evolutionary approaches to metaphor may be polar opposites. Some, like Darwin, may stretch metaphors to the breaking point. Others express sharp opposition that these metaphors may not be based on reality, as UCLA professor Dr. Greg Graffin recently complained:
The trick is: How do you talk about natural selection without implying the rigidity of law? We use it as almost an active participant, almost like a god. In fact, you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings, and you’d think you were listening to a theologian. It’s a routine we know doesn’t exist, but we teach it anyway: genetic mutation and some active force choose the most favorable one.13
Warning 5: Admissions That Natural Selection Is Not Literally True

Illustrations by analogy and metaphor in scientific literature are commonly accepted—provided there are real, measurable properties of the things being likened. Since the publication of Origin, scientists have seen that the power of evolutionary scenarios to leap over any biological obstacle resides in how natural selection “acts” like a literal human agent. Discerning that it possesses nothing analogous to a human mind prompted early criticisms that “selection” was not literally true.

In Darwin’s 1872 edition of Origin, he responded to those calls for him to justify use of the word “selection.” Darwin admitted, like all evolutionists will when challenged, that calling the process of how organisms fit environments “selection” was not true. He confided, “In a literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term…it has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the planets?”14 No one objects to that metaphor, since attractive gravitational forces are real and measurable.

The same disconnect from reality is acknowledged in recent work focused on accurately describing evolution. For example, Harvard’s leading evolutionary authority, Ernst Mayr, in What Evolution Is disclosed the same veiled truth, “The conclusion that these favored individuals had been selected to survive requires an answer to the question, Who does the selecting? In the case of artificial selection, it is indeed the animal or plant breeder….But, strictly speaking, there is no such agent involved in natural selection.”15 Then in 2009, Jerry Coyne wrote in Why Evolution Is True, “And while I said that natural selection acts, this is not really accurate. Selection is not a mechanism imposed on a population from outside.”16

Though all of these authorities concede that tying “selection” to some real agent is “false” and “not really accurate,” they still minimize the magnitude of this inaccuracy through persistent use of words describing natural selection as if it really is “a mechanism imposed on a population from outside.”

A Better Approach

Continuing to argue against natural selection from within its false paradigm ignores the wise counsel of Proverbs 26:4: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Why? Given that “selection” really is an inaccurate and false term, and since it is only a deceptive figure of speech that attributes selection ability where there is no selector, wouldn’t it be wise to point these facts out? Isn’t it wise to show that that use of the word “selection” has never been justified, but is just the ruse to slip intelligence back into a design process after taking God out? Likewise, it is wise to show that organisms are programmed to fill environments; natural selection steals glory from God.

Since proponents of natural selection erroneously view the organism-environment interface from the environment’s side, the crippled explanation “it just happens” is the best they have. Knowing, however, that things really don’t just happen should prompt a search for a real plan. Indeed, a “process” may be the best description of selection. Advocates of process always include three necessary conditions: 1) reproduction of traits 2) which differ in ability to solve environmental problems 3) and which are heritable.17 Immediately, a major disconnect should become evident in the minds of these believers. The conditions specified to be environmental “selection” are in reality the unfolding of genetic abilities programmed into the organisms themselves. True realization comes when recognizing that the power to solve ecological challenges has always resided in the organism and not in the environment.

The Lord’s purpose for programming capabilities into organisms to adapt to dynamic environments is clear. “And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [fill] the earth” (Genesis 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7). He commanded organisms to fill all ecological niches. Adaptability is just a tool or stepping stone that enables the ultimate purpose of filling. As traits are expressed in a population of organisms, some will “fit” better to different environmental conditions. This means they are physiologically more suitable and better able to extract resources. Organisms with those traits fill, pioneer, or move into that environment—they are not “selected for.” The organism has the power and is active to either succeed or fail.

Organisms express remarkable diversity of traits and at times quite rapidly—but always within the limits of their “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12.) An organism-based paradigm is biblical. This explains how the process of organisms programmed to fit environments and fill them is the outworking of an intelligent plan, and not the product of an imaginary environment-based selector that “just happens.”

But the power that selection has to captivate a mind must never be underestimated—as it is only in the mind that this kind of “selection” actually takes place. Such a mind has been trained to see the environment as the primary mover in the organism-environment interface, in spite of the fact that there is no real “selector” in any adaptive chain of events. In contrast to this, organisms possess traits they generate to solve the problems of a new environment, ones that enable their descendants to pioneer into new niches. But when people with the “natural selection” mindset see the descendants of these organisms in those niches, paradoxically their minds “see” the environment “select for” the organism—a conclusion contrary to what is indicated by real external stimuli. As a result, they have ascribed intelligence to something inanimate, thereby raising serious scientific and theological implications.

After 150 years, Darwin’s sacred imposter—natural selection—still stands as the only accepted alternative to the design of God in nature. It is presented in most schools as absolutely true in spite of its ill-defined basis, its invisible operation, and the fact that there is no real “selector”—because attributes inherent to organisms actually do all the work. These warnings should influence creation scientists to step back and re-evaluate this convoluted evolutionary idea.

Those who extol the Creator must at some point reject any idea that robs God of His glory.

  1. Ross, M. 2010. Those Not-So-Dry Bones. Answers. 5 (1): 45.
  2. Coyne, J. A. The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory? The Nation, May 10, 2010.
  3. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray, 61.
  4. Calsbeek, R. and R. M. Cox. 2010. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature. 465 (7298): 613-616.
  5. Endler, J. 1992. Natural Selection: Current Usages. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 220.
  6. Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218.
  7. Fodor, J. A. 2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 155.
  8. Lester, L. P. 1989. The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Dallas, TX: Probe Books, 71.
  9. Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking, 115.
  10. Futuyma, D. Natural Selection: How Evolution Works, an original interview. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Posted on December 2004.
  11. Darwin, On the origin of species, 61.
  12. Darwin, On the origin of species, 84.
  13. Biello, D. 2010. Darwin Was a Punk. Scientific American. 303 (5): 28.
  14. Darwin, C. 1872. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 6th ed. London: Senate, 63.
  15. Mayr, E. 2001. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 117.
  16. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 117.
  17. Endler, Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, 220.
* Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Real Miracles come from God, not UM! Ask Elizabeth Bury or a passing Monarch Butterfly.

Psalms 139, history and science.  Here we go...Elizabeth Bury and the amazing Monarch Butterfly!  Down near the bottom of the page I share one creature that, by itself, totally destroys the concept of Darwinism!

Elizabeth Bury is discussed at this page.  She was a very devoted woman of God and a quite intelligent and diligent woman indeed!   I will share her motto with you, from this page:
Her Hebrew motto[1] in her closet for many years was
i.e. Thou LORD seest me,[2] plainly intimating her awful adoration of God’s omniscience, and that her eye of faith should be always upon him; and that she would ever act under the influence of that persuasion that God was present, whether in reading, praying, meditating, examining or recording the solemn transactions that passed betwixt him and her soul[3] in that closet.[4]

She always had this before her, that as oft as she entered in, and as long as she continued there, and in every duty she performed, it might be a memorial that every sin and folly and instance of her departure from God was perfectly known to him; and every penitent confession, tear and groan was in his sight and under the hearing of an omnipresent God; and every prayer and purpose and vow and solemn obligation made and renewed and ratified there was sacred and awful, as under the eye and notice of an all-seeing and heart-searching God. And this she often found had greatly restrained her from sin and excited her to duty, and disposed her for comfortable communion with God, and kept her heart from trifling in her closet.

[1] The characters are a facsimile from the second and third editions, 1721.
[2] Genesis 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
[3]Cf. Joseph Alleine, Alarme to Unconverted Sinners: ‘This covenant I advise you to make…Keep it as a memorial of the solemn transactions that have passed between God and you.’
[4] Matthew Henry’s sister Sarah was aware of Elizabeth Bury’s closet motto, for on February 4, 1727 she writes, ‘I read a sermon of my dear father’s concerning the last judgment. Many things in it very awful; but that which, especially, affected me was this, “Things done in the closet shall be proclaimed”. This should excite me to seriousness. The motto good Mrs Bury had written in her closet was – Thou God seest me. I praise my God that this thought yields me some comfort. My dear and kind heavenly Father sees some secret transactions between him and me, which I trust he will accept only, only for Christ’s sake’ – Diary of Mrs Sarah Savage (1664–1752).

If you are not familiar with the style of Old England, the writing above will seem stilted and a bit difficult.  "Awful" now would more likely be "Awesome" in modern language.  If you are familiar with the writings of Jane Austen you will read the Bury section and apprehend it.  The writings of Old England were quite conservative in tone and in fact this tendency followed the Founders across the pond to America.   If you have read many writings of our Founding Fathers you will see more similarity to the style of the author, above, than you will in 21st Century prose.  To an extent our society has not only lost morality but also a good measure of civility and grace.   It is the world in which we live now, so in vernacular and tone I also speak with a modern tone on this blog.  I suppose the internet, automobiles, central air conditioning and a constant supply of clean, fresh water makes up for the loss?   We would do well to recover a bit of our lost morality for the sake of the future of our children and our children's children.  Okay, off the soap box.

Now I will share a bit of scripture interspersed with comments and notes and the Bible will be in bright blue.

Psalm 139 - English Standard Version (ESV)

Search Me, O God, and Know My Heart
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David.
 1O LORD, you have searched me and known me! 2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
   you discern my thoughts from afar.
3You search out my path and my lying down
   and are acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before a word is on my tongue,
   behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
5You hem me in, behind and before,
   and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
   it is high; I cannot attain it.

Elizabeth Bury knew that God knew her intimately and completely, in fact, God knows us better than we know ourselves.  The wise man understands that God made everything and therefore He made you and knows you and sees you.   To me, this is a comfort, for I know He knows and understands me and has mercy on my weaknesses and seeks to help me conquer them and accomplish things both good and great.

 7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
   Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
    If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9If I take the wings of the morning
   and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10even there your hand shall lead me,
   and your right hand shall hold me.
11If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me,
   and the light about me be night,"
12 even the darkness is not dark to you;
   the night is bright as the day,
   for darkness is as light with you.

There is no place where God does not know for God has made all things.   God invented everything and in fact he invented nothing.   He created the material world, which is why all naturalistic explanations for the Universe are both logically and mathematically absurd.   In stark contrast to Darwinist story-tellers and believers in UM, Elizabeth Bury was a brilliant woman of many accomplishments and interests which humble me to consider.   The secret of her genius must have been her devotion to and knowledge of God!

 13For you formed my inward parts;
   you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a] Wonderful are your works;
   my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,when I was being made in secret,
   intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them,
   the days that were formed for me,
   when as yet there was none of them.

Yes, as science advances we discover how wondrous a human being is - 100 trillion cells with ten times that many microorganisms inhabiting us as if we were a planet or a spacecraft.  We discover that DNA, the four character code exponentially more complex than binary computer code, is not just a means of coding for reproduction but actually has continuing uses.   We also see that the so-called "junk DNA" is actually quite functional and contains oversight and quality control features.  We have discovered that the cell itself is also holder of information and algorithms.  Not only is DNA and the cell a symbiotic relationship with one not capable of existence without the other, symbiosis goes far beyond a partnership between two organisms.  Within our cells manifold systems and components work in harmony.   We ourselves harbor microorganisms that help us live while at the same time we provide a life for them.   In the ecosystem of Earth there are often multiple organisms all working together to survive and unable to do so alone.  Information, design, algorithms...Life is so obviously designed that it hurts my brain to think that anyone doubts it!

 17How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
   How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
   I awake, and I am still with you.
 19Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
   O men of blood, depart from me!
20They speak against you with malicious intent;
   your enemies take your name in vain![b]
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD?
   And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
22I hate them with complete hatred;
   I count them my enemies.

I cannot hate my Darwinist foes.   I want them to know the truth.  Despite the fact that they often attack my character and try to mock me, I will continue to try to present reasons to them to abandon Darwinism, give up on UM and discover God and real science.

The enemies of God, if they remain enemies, shall pay a fearful price in coming face to face with their Creator having lived a life thumbing their noses at Him.  Those who disdain the gift purchased at the terrible price paid by Jesus Christ to save them from their own eternal demise will not find me adding to their griefs.   They will pay with Hell.   I know Hell is eternal separation from God, it is eternal punishment and it is a fate so terrible and awful that I do not spend much time pondering it.  I seek to keep you from knowing exactly what it is!

 23Search me, O God, and know my heart!
    Try me and know my thoughts![c]

24And see if there be any grievous way in me,
   and lead me in the way everlasting![d]

Readers, there is no sense in continuing to believe in nothing when there is a Great and Wondrous God who has revealed Himself in so many ways.   Consider the Monarch butterfly.  

"How long does a monarch live?"

"Why do monarchs migrate south?"

The answers to these two questions go hand-in-hand. Children ask them all the time. Most monarchs live from two to six weeks as an adult butterfly, but the Monarch's migration is the KEY to its yearly life cycle.

The total time frame for one butterfly's life cycle (one generation) is about 6-8 weeks . . . egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly. It grows inside the egg for about 4 days. It then munches milkweed and grows as a monarch caterpillar (larvae) for about 2 more weeks. The caterpillar's life inside the chrysalis (pupa) lasts about 10 days and its wonderful life as an adult butterfly lasts from 2 - 6 weeks.
February/March - hibernating monarchs in Mexico and southern California reawaken, become active, find a mate, begin the flight northward and lay their eggs. Finally they die. These special monarchs have lived about 4-5 months through the long winter.

March/April -the 1st generation monarchs are born -egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

May/June - the 2nd generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

July/August - the 3rd generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

Sept/Oct - the 4th generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly . . . but THIS generation does not die. It MIGRATES south and lives 6-8 months in Mexico or Southern California. They begin awakening and mating in February/March of the NEXT SPRING, and then lay their eggs! Withered and tattered from their migration and hibernation . . . they finally die.
The cycles goes on as the new baby caterpillars are born each spring and the cycle continues throughout the year into the next spring. MAGICAL and AMAZING!

The last generation is called the Methuselah Generation, named for the longest-lived Biblical Patriarch of the prediluvial world.  The Monarch only lays eggs on Milkweed, which grows in the USA and Canada.  But it must winter far south in the Transvolcanic region of Mexico, far from the food the caterpillar eats.    It is first an egg, a beautiful egg that resembles the dome of a cathedral.   This egg hatches and becomes a caterpillar, which is basically a multiple-legged eating machine that grows out of it's own skin and must make a new skin and then escape the old with a variety of specialized systems needed to accomplish this.    It quickly grows and then begins to transform into a chrysalis that hangs from the Milkweed.  Within the chrysalis a caterpillar is transformed into a butterfly.   A caterpillar forms a few cells before it goes to chrysalis stage that will be used to help make a butterfly, but most of the caterpillar cells will be dissolved and re-formed into completely new cells for an entirely new creature as the Monarch goes from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly.  Evolution cannot begin to explain this.   Monarch Butterflies get nutrition from flowers but, because they are first born of a caterpillar that eats Milkweed, which is poisonous,  predators tend to recognize the Monarch wing pattern because the adult butterfly contains some of the Milkweed's poison.  They do not taste good!

But, for the Darwinist it soon gets worse.   Monarchs migrate North as the Milkweed grows with the season, and there will be two or three generations of short-lived Monarchs that go egg-caterpillar-chrysalis-butterfly-lay eggs and die.    The Monarchs move North to places like Michigan and Southern Canada in their last migration North before the seasonal changes clue the Methuselah Generation to begin their migration to either the Transvolcanic Plateau of Mexico or a small percentage that overwinter in Southern California.  So not the children nor grandchildren of butterflies wind up going back South, but rather it will be the great or great-great grandchildren that are almost always the ones that live nine months rather than a few short weeks and go to flock together by the millions upon millions in a type of hibernation for the winter in a place their parents never visited.

Recent studies of the Eastern populations show that most come together in Texas and follow a path through Mexico South before making a hard turn towards the trees they will flock on for winter.  But some choose to go across the Gulf of Mexico rather than go West towards Texas and now oil rigs in the Gulf have proved to be convenient resting spot for groups of migrating Monarchs.  Did they fly across the Gulf without rest before there were oil rigs?

What explanation can Darwinists give for 20,000 species of butterflies, all of which can clearly identify the one plant it's caterpillar can eat and lays its eggs thereon?   Then how do you explain the Monarch, which not only has four different life forms in its life cycle, but also normally goes through four generations between overwintering far from Milkweed to the butterflies that will live 9 months and make their way back down South to the home away from home they have never known?

There are yet more perplexing facts about butterflies in general and Monarchs in particular.   They have inbuilt algorithms that cause them to know when to migrate and how to navigate to a strange location.  In fact the information required to cause them to take four different forms, know what plant to lay their eggs on (a plant poisonous to most creatures) be able to have multiple short migratory generations following the Milkweed North and then have one long-lived generation to migrate South with uncanny accuracy and success.  The very design of butterfly wings is being studied and copied by human engineers.   Within all these designs it appears that our God has also given us clues that He not only made both us and the Monarch, He knows will will be and when.   A researcher has found all letters of the English alphabet and all ten Arabic numerals on the wings of butterflies, for instance: 

Bible Footnotes:
  1. Psalm 139:14 Or for I am fearfully set apart
  2. Psalm 139:20 Hebrew lacks your name
  3. Psalm 139:23 Or cares
  4. Psalm 139:24 Or in the ancient way (compare Jeremiah 6:16)
Recommended resource:  Metamorphosis

    UM cannot compete with GOD!

    Sunday, November 27, 2011

    No Greater Faith - believers in evolution aka Darwinists

    I believe in God and do so fully certain it is a wise thing.   Those who do NOT believe in God as Creator of all believe in UM instead.   I will argue that to believe in UM takes far more faith than a belief in God and is in fact the greatest faith of all, since it is based on vast amounts of nothing.   What is UM, you ask?   It stands for Unattributed Miracles.   Darwinism of all sorts, in fact evolution as an explanation for the organisms found on the Earth, and all forms of Atheism all depend upon UM.  It is their substitute for God.   They call it random chance but frankly the laws of statistics put the lie to that.  There is no chance statistically that one protein could ever develop by chance in the so-called 13.7 billion years of the protein!   You are expected to believe that billions of organisms exist, all different from each other at least minutely, when not even one protein could ever form by chance???  

    Sometimes a movie or television show will present someone meditating by repeating "Om" over and over and over.   Actually back in the days when I was trying every way possible to God I tried meditation but we would use a phrase and not one meaningless sound.  Nevertheless, Om no doubt has all the power that UM has, every bit, which would be the null set.  I expect that rational Darwinists will eventually come to the realization that UM is actually NOTHING and lose their faith.

    UM has not been demonstrated to have any actual power itself - Unless you consider being a stand-in for God and a step on the road to Hell to be of significance.   So I suppose I must admit that UM has some power.   Like the power of the emptiness of the pothole that pops your tire or the lack of gasoline in your tank that leaves you stranded out on a country road - that kind of power.   UM is the bridge that is not there when you want to cross the river or the missing lifeboat you seek when the ship is sinking. 

    There is a wonderful movie from 1979, Breaking Away, which features several well-known actors very early in their careers, including Dennis Quaid and Daniel Stern (his debut) and Jackie Earle Haley, and stars Dennis Christopher in the lead role.   The plot revolves around four young men who have graduated high school and have not yet found their next step and are aimlessly wandering the area in and around Bloomington, Indiana and the campus of Indiana University.   Christopher plays Dave Stoller, a once-sickly youngster who has become fixated on bicycle racing and all things Italian, in the process being remade into an athlete capable of winning trophies road racing and also a poseur living life as an Italian somehow stranded in the land of Hoosier.   He is the delight of his mother and the cause of great frustration to his father.   He hero-worships the Italian racing team named Cinzano

    There is a crucial moment in the film where Dave discovers an awful truth that he describes thus: "Everybody cheats. I just didn't know."  His world turns upside down.  It is a wonderful coming-of-age movie, able to stand up to more famed films like American Graffiti in that genre.  I suppose they are my two favorite such movies.  Perhaps it is because I spent much of my childhood in a town much like Bloomington but nevertheless as a teenager lived out much of that fateful night in Graffiti.   Our city had a "merry-go-round" where we drove our cars and showed off our girlfriends to onlookers or else hoped to attract new girlfriends with our shiny waxed and Thrush-rumbling jacked-up dual-exhausted rides.  Ah, memories...

    Part of the theme of Breaking Away and in fact many movies is the loss of faith.   There is a point where Dave Stoller loses faith.  There was a point in my life when I lost faith.  In my case, my faith was in myself and my ability to reason and thereby figure out the meaning of life on my own.  When I lost that faith I decided to simply live to party and please myself until the day that I died.   Then God found me.  Then I discovered that faith in God was more than simply a belief system, it was Truth.   

    Now I have an unshakable faith in God that has been tried and tested in the fires of trial and tribulation and logic and the various assaults of Darwinists.   It turns out that Creationism is far better science than Darwinism and the artificial insertion of mandatory naturalism not only in investigation but ALSO HYPOTHESES AND CONCLUSIONS has handicapped science and brought on Scientism! But I have also made an interesting observation.   Darwinists have incredible faith!   In fact, they must have the greatest faith of any believers on the face of the planet.  They believe in UM! Consider the following:

    • They believe in an Universe that begins without a cause agent.
    • They believe in logical laws of science formed within a Universe that came from random chance.
    • They believe that information has formed all by itself.
    • They believe that life has formed all by itself.
    • They believe that sentience has formed randomly within mankind for no discernable reason whatever.
    • They believe that evolution has converted muck into mankind with no design or intentionality involved.

    I could go on and on.  Those assertions of Darwin that birthed Darwinism were made by a man who himself agreed that, if there was no continuum of transitional fossils following the Cambrian Explosion or if there was no continuum of primitive organisms found within the fossil record before that layer then his hypothesis would be a failure.  So if there was a 21st Century Charles Darwin I believe he would deny his own hypothesis and with good reason.  

    While random commenters try in vain to bog me down with an attempt at putting ice cores and radiometric dating and tree rings together to define a precise age of the Earth, I point out to them that their hypothesis has no foundation and their emperor has no clothes.   The fossil record is catastrophic, not uniformitarian.   There is no standard geologic column.   There are numerous polystrates, megagbreccias, out-of-order layers and anomalous fossils to completely destroy the fossil record as a foundation to Darwinism.   Organisms are miraculously preserved in great quantities (a sign of near-instant anaerobic burial), quantities of organisms that are fully developed and not transitional forms.  A look within organisms shows design and information far more sophisticated than man is capable of reproducing.  The Universe is finite and Darwinists have no answer for a causation.   Well, they have answers but they are pitiful and illogical in the extreme.  

    Richard Sternberg was fired from the Smithsonian Institute for daring to present Dr. Stephen C Meyer's peer-reviewed paper, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” in the Smithsonian's  Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

    Sternberg was fired, but not by UM.   Bureaucrats fearing the ruling paradigm got him out of the place before he "infected: everyone, as if Intelligent Design was like rock and roll dancing and the Smithsonian was about to become Footloose?  Ironically, the Christians are the censors, the rigid controllers of the accepted order in the movie but in real life IT IS THE ATHEISTS!!!

    So UM is apparently so weak and helpless that mortal men dare not dissent lest other mortal men punish you for your transgression.   UM has not been demonstrated to have any actual power itself - Unless you consider being a stand-in for God and a step on the road to Hell to be of significance.   So I suppose I must admit that UM has some power.   Like the power of the emptiness of the pothole that pops your tire or the lack of gasoline in your tank that leaves you stranded out on a country road - that kind of power.   UM is the bridge that is not there when you want to cross the river or the missing lifeboat you seek when the ship is sinking.   If that is power, then UM does have a kind of power.  Just not the kind I want.

    There is a brilliant blog named Buy The Truth.   I think that the August 1, 2011 post is fantastic and I hope you go read it.   In fact I will probably post it soon.   For now I will simply post an excerpt from the beginning and a comment in response to a man who believes the number 23 explains everything:

    "Marcus du Sautoy, Polyani Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (having succeeded Richard Dawkins in the Chair), is currently presenting a series of TV programmes about mathematics and nature entitled ‘The Code’. Viewers could be forgiven for believing that what he is presenting is a mainstream view of mathematics rather than peddling his own peculiar brand of atheistic metaphysics. Since no appropriate caveats have been employed by the BBC, we feel it necessary to make a few of our own.

    Firstly, Du Sautoy’s view that, as the Pythagoreans expressed it, ‘Number is everything’ is of very ancient pedigree; but, nothwithstanding, it is undemonstrable (which should be anathema to a mathematician) and a faith-based religious concept. Secondly, philosophers of mathematics and informed students of mathematics know that there is, to date, no satisfactory understanding of the relationship, if any, between mathematics and reality; to suggest that there is a relationship, and what such a relationship might be, is an act of faith. And thirdly, it is very unfortunate for scientists to be working with mathematics as though mathematics itself is the original reality to which the physical world ‘must’ conform through such things as ‘laws’; science has been hideously corrupted in the last 80 years because of this.

    Some Christians might be heartened to see and hear Du Sautoy suggesting that numbers are at the root of all reality, that this is in some way all grist to the mill of Intelligent Design. Not so fast: Du Sautoy is an avowed atheist (who not very wittily gives his religion as ‘Arsenal’) who by his own admission is trying a more ‘softly softly’ approach than Richard ‘The Rottweiler’ Dawkins (whom all can see is a bigoted fanatic) and is not appealing to design, or even apparent design, but to some mysterious entity he calls ‘The Code’. A code at the very least implies information content, but The Code (as a proper noun and with the definite article) suggests something unique and powerful. Thus Du Sautoy:
    …underlying everything that surrounds us, from the natural world to the cities we live in, there is a hidden code that explains why things look and behave they way they do.
    [This hidden code (‘The Code’)] has the power to unlock the laws that govern the universe.
    The Code is the truth of the universe, and its numbers dictate the way the world must be.
    So, this hidden code, this entity that Du Sautoy calls ‘The Code’, has total and complete explanatory power, is identical to Absolute Truth, can lead us into All Truth, and is completely deterministic. This is unquestionably a religious position. And it is none other than the old heresy of Pythagoras, the pagan Greek philosopher, re-worked by gnostics, Kabbalists, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Illuminists, and now, it appears, New Atheists. What a wheeze if they can pull this one off!..."

    Don't be afraid to read it all!

    "Michael Jordan wore number 23, so therefore the number 23 must be the most significant number in the world!!! 

    How can anyone state with authority that “we have to accept that time started with the big bang” when there is no accepted big bang theory that does not include numerous fudge factors? Where is the dark matter and dark energy if not observed and why should we accept that they exist? By what means does a “singularity” appear and by what means does it “explode” and why should we accept that a Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation for the Universe when a singularity appears as if by magic and explodes by magic? Then there is the magical Planck Time when for 10^-43 seconds all rules of physics are ignored in order to accommodate an hypothesis which still requires that (approximately) 96 per cent of the Universe that cannot be detected by man must nonetheless be there?

    Every big bang hypothesis I have seen seems to be a case of trying to fit an automobile into a mailbox. Not one of them can account for what we observe in existence today. Also the Nebular Hypothesis appears to be another case of magical thinking as we do not observe it happening and what we know indicates it will never be observed. No one knows how stars are formed, either. 

    In fact, those who refuse to consider the idea that a finite Universe must have a First Cause invariably will find a substitute for God, a substitute with the attributes of God without the name. In the end, this is where Du Satoy is taking us, the idea that numbers are God. Evolutionists believe that random chance is God. 

    “That’s the whole problem with science. You’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder.”
    - Bill Watterson

    That fractals and patterns recurring throughout the Universe are observed and yet at the same time originality (no two people have the same fingerprints, no two snowflakes appear to be exactly alike, etc.) is also observed points towards design by intelligence. That the Universe is also full of beauty indicated a Designer with an intent to share that beauty with beholders. All 20,000-some species of butterfly have their own gorgeous patterns. All of them take four forms during their lifetime – egg, caterpillar, chrysalis and butterfly. Is there any conceivable way that a chrysalis can reproduce and evolve up to the level of a butterfly? How does a naturalist explain such a thing? 

    Stephen C. Meyer has pointed out that the only explanation we have for design and information in the natural world is intelligence. For this reason he has worked in the field of Intelligent Design, doing what can be done with empirical science to point at the obvious, that conclusion that naturalists detest with all their might, that creation ex nihilo requires a Creator. Otherwise you are left with what I call UM (unattributed miracles) which is actually God with a different label. Du Satoy is not saying anything new. Neither is Hawking. They are all just looking for ways to avoid the unavoidable God."

    Funny thing, the Christians I know, most of them, can have a LOT of fun.   Practical jokes, complicated pranks, impromptu games of all kinds, goofy youth group stunts, scavenger hunts, etc.   We go dancing and do karaoke and go to ball games and enjoy the occasional alcoholic beverage.   We chase kids around with biffers and turn out the lights and hide from them.   We play blind volleyball and strobe light volleyball.   We always have a great Christmas party for the youth staff with the highlight being the white elephant gift ritual where people can steal gifts or open new ones.   You might get a $80 dollar collectible or you might get a hideous copper and corkboard wall plaque your wife and friends require you to keep on the wall for a year's time.   Christians that I know understand we are free to cut loose and celebrate living.  Oh, and we also know Who made the Universe and why He made it.   Just ask...

    Wednesday, November 23, 2011

    Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) - yet another misused dating method that is foisted on the unwitting by those who know better

    Tree rings as a method of dating? 


    Is this the magic wand by which Darwinists make the evidence for the Noahic Flood and the Biblical creation account disappear?   Or is it yet another simplistic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?  After all, they deny population genetics science when they look at the human population because population models tell us the population of the Earth began around 4,000-4,5000 years ago - just what a YEC would expect, since that is about the time the Ark opened and the family of Noah came out to repopulate the Earth.

    Ice Cores?  I have made a few posts on Ice Cores, and I like this one best.  Long, but full of information.   You can do a search on this blog and find several that involve the issue of dating by ice cores and why it cannot be done beyond a very short time period because several layers can be laid down in one storm in today's world and there was a world-wide flood that Darwinists pretend did not happen and also right after that an ice age period when massive amounts of snow and ice were laid down, forming glaciation that began to melt as the planet normalized except near the poles and in some cases on mountains.   I also really like this one and also this one.

    Anyway, there are big problems for Darwinists when they try to depend upon Carbon-14 dating, as Ian Juby so beautifully explained.   Funny thing is, they know the method is flawed but use it anyway because it gives them nice old ages!!!   Too bad it will give long dates to things we know are recent, huh?

    And then the natural follow-up,

    I do hope you remember that Mt St Helens proved to us that varves can be laid down in a matter of minutes, not years?   Also I will remind you of this set of experiments:

    Preliminary reports of sedimentation experiments held at Glen Rose, Texas, March2007

    "Written by Ian Juby
    Various footage taken during these experiments can be viewed in my Video Logs (VLOGs) on Youtube:

      In mid-march, 2007, M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and myself performed a series of experiments over two weeks at Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.  The museum grounds have a rotary flume which was constructed by M.E. and Dr. Henry Voss, and was transported to Glen Rose some years ago.  M.E. also brought down "Archimedes," a specially designed and constructed liquefaction tank which will be discussed later..."  Gotta go here to see it all!

    Varves were formed when Mt St Helens exploded and produced a miniature Grand Canyon which we could study and discover a LOT about the formation of the original.  There is a lot of evidence for a Flood Model of Geology and it doesn't have all the problems that naturalists cannot solve.

    A YEC look at varves...

    Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation

    1. Roger Y. Anderson1,
    2. Edward B. Nuhfer2 and
    3. Walter E. Dean3
    + Author Affiliations
    1. 1Department of Geology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
    2. 2Department of Geosciences, University of Wisconsin, Platteville, Platteville, Wisconsin 53818
    3. 3U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado 80225


    Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about two orders of magnitude greater than for comparable basins with vegetation and similar precipitation. Most sediment was mobilized by storms and runoff at the onset of the wet season. The sedimentation response to strongly seasonal precipitation, in the absence of vegetation, produced turbidites and graded annual couplets. The style of sedimentation suggests an alternate mechanism for the formation of long sequences of graded clastic varves.


    Articles citing this article

    Patriarchs of the forest

    High in the cold, dry air of the White Mountains of California, just north of the infamous and inhospitable Death Valley, lives possibly the world’s oldest living1 organism. It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ‘Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years.2 Amazingly, this tree would have been over 2,000 years old when Jesus Christ walked the Earth.

    Bible issues

    Photo by Ken Ham
    The dead giant
    ‘The Dead Giant’, a sequoia in Yosemite National Park, California. 

    This tree’s ‘ring’ age is close to the Biblical date for the globe-covering and life-destroying Flood of Noah (Genesis 6–8) of around 4,500 years ago. There should be no trees alive on Earth today which are older than the Flood. God’s judgment on sin was in the form of a global watery catastrophe which destroyed all air-breathing land vertebrates except for those whom God lovingly preserved on the Ark. A flood cataclysm of this magnitude would have laid down much of the massive thickness of sedimentary rock covering most of the Earth’s surface, and would have ensured that no trees alive at that time would have remained growing in place. So no tree growing today could have started growing from a seed in that spot more than about 4,500 years ago.

    It is normally assumed that for each year of growth, one growth ring will be shown. This is generally true; however, it is a demonstrable fact that in years of good growth, i.e. moist, warm conditions, more than one growth ring can readily occur. Research has actually demonstrated this with Bristlecone Pine seedlings. By supplementing the ‘normal’ winter day length with a heat lamp, extra rings were able to be grown.3 In the presumed warm, moist and changing seasonal conditions in the first few centuries after Noah’s Flood, it is likely that there would have been quite a few such extra rings. This comfortably accounts for the few hundred years (less than 10%) difference between the oldest ‘real’ tree-ring results and the Biblical date of the Flood.
    However, such an explanation would be strained if tree-rings on living trees gave dates of thousands of years more than this. Some scientists have now proposed a Bristlecone Pine chronology extending back more than 9,000 years from today.4 But this is by using a tree-ring dating method that links pieces of dead trees (even fossil fragments) with living ones. This ‘overlapping’ method seeks to cross-match the rings, using best-fit scenarios. These are fortified by statistical analysis to try to eliminate the subjectivity. But in the past, there has apparently been some difficulty obtaining access to the raw data to independently check these procedures. This has now been overcome, and further creationist research is underway.5 The bottom line is, however, that these apparent challenges do not arise from present-day, growing trees.

    Are any living trees claimed to be substantially older than the Biblical date of the Flood? Indeed so—sometimes more than 10,000 years. But we shall discover that none of these were from counting the actual number of rings in a living tree.
    Photo by John Woodmorappe
    Sequoia tree

    Oldest and Biggest?

    The Bristlecone Pine. Using its growth rings as age indicators, it is perhaps the oldest living thing on Earth. At over 4,000 years old, these trees possibly started to grow just after the great Flood.

    Sequoia trees, like the one pictured here are among the tallest living things on Earth today, growing to be hundreds of feet high. The name ‘sequoia’ is in honour of the Indian Cherokee nation leader Seqouyah (1776–1842), who invented a unique alphabet and taught his people to read and write. One of the first books in Cherokee was the Bible (1825).

    Giant Sequoias generally have very shallow root systems of only about 3 m (10 ft) deep and are highly resistant to insect pests, disease and fire. The General Sherman tree (above) is the most massive one in the world. It contains enough timber to build 40 houses of five rooms each. Its outer bark is reported to be more than 1.3 m (4 ft) thick.

    Tasmanian trees—30,000 years old?

    The Huon Pine (Lagarostrobos franklinii) is a native conifer of Tasmania (Australia). In 1995, international headlines claimed that there could be Huon Pines as old as 30,000–40,000 years.6 Many people had the impression that this must refer to the number of rings, but that was not the case. How were the dates obtained? The trees in this particular stand are genetically identical to each other. That is, they have reproduced by vegetative reproduction from an original tree. This could mean that they have simply transplanted themselves, possibly from fallen branches, or new growth could be occurring from underground root systems. It is assumed that this reproductive process has been continuing for many millennia, hence the speculative ‘long ages’. In some cases, the carbon-14 (14C) dating method has been used on the root system and nearby fragments, and Huon Pine pollen has been found in the sedimentary layers of a nearby lake. We have often explained the assumptions behind 14C methods and the errors made in interpreting the data.

    No individual Huon Pine has ever been dated, by straight-forward tree ring methods, as more than 3,500 years old.

    The world’s oldest trees

    Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva and Pinus aristata) grow in very extreme, harsh conditions at altitudes of more than 3,000 m (10,000 ft). The highly resinous wood of these gnarled, ghostly-looking giants ensures they resist attacks from bacteria, fungi and insects. They are extremely slow growers. During their annual growing season of only about 45 days, they can add as little as 2.5 cm (1 in) to their girth every hundred years.7 While only reaching a maximum height of around 18 m (60 ft), the girth of the largest Bristlecone, named ‘Old Patriarch’, is a massive 11.2 m (36 ft 8 in).

    The second-oldest known living tree, with a verified tree-ring age of 3,631 years, is an Alerce Tree from Chile, South America. Also known as the Patagonian Cypress, this species is believed to be related to North America’s giant redwoods (sequoias). Interestingly, Charles Darwin named it Fitzroya cupressoides in honour of Robert FitzRoy, captain of H.M.S. Beagle.8

    The world’s tallest trees

    The tallest known living tree is the Mendocino tree, a giant redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) found near Ukiah, California, USA. It has been officially measured at 112 m (367 ft 5 in). However, this was dwarfed by an Australian eucalypt (mountain ash), felled in Victoria, Australia, in 1872. It was believed to have been almost 150 m (492 ft) tall or as high as a 36-storey building, and remains the tallest ‘known’ tree to have ever lived.9

    The location of many of these ‘prized’ trees (such as Old Methuselah or the Mendocino tree) is kept secret to deter vandals and souvenir hunters.10

    The world’s largest trees

    The official ‘living’ record for size is held by a giant sequoia, dubbed ‘General Sherman’, which can be found in California’s Sequoia National Park. It stands at 83.8 m (275 ft) and is 31.3 m (102 ft 8 in) around its base, and (with the possible exception of an underground fungus system11) is the largest single organism existing on Earth. Its total bulk is more than ten times that of a Blue Whale.

    General Sherman was originally thought to be more than 6,000 years old, but this has now been revised to only 2,150 years. Nate Stephenson of the US Geological Survey said, ‘The new Sherman tree age estimate could still be off by centuries’. How, using a very simple method of ‘just counting tree rings’, can dates be subject to such dramatic alteration?

    Most people presume that an ‘old’ tree’s age is derived from just counting the annual rings from a full-depth core sample. But this is hardly ever so. In the case of General Sherman, only foot-long samples were taken, and cross-matched with each other by looking for similar ‘indicator’ or distinct rings. Mathematical assumptions are then made to calculate the age of the tree by comparing measurements from other sequoia stumps.12,13

    A uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past) approach is then applied when calculating dates (which doesn’t allow for differences in past climates which can affect growing seasons and even produce extra rings). This has been shown, in the case of General Sherman, to be very inaccurate. It would be more accurate if samples could be taken right through to the tree’s core or pith. But such procedures are very difficult on huge trees, as core samples are usually only pencil thin. This is because a full-depth procedure using large power equipment would involve significant damage to the tree. In short, longer dates have been assumed due to the enormous size of the tree.
    Heights of trees Interestingly, Nate Stephenson also says, ‘Most of the largest sequoias are really just middle-aged. But they’re still growing like teenagers. Each year, it adds enough wood to make a tree one ft (30 cm) in diameter and more than 100 ft (30 m) tall’. He adds, ‘The relative youth of the world’s largest tree comes as something of a surprise’.12

    Plant biologists agree, and even expect, that these vigorously-growing, magnificent ancient trees could continue to grow for many thousands of years into the future. And they would expect, therefore, that there is no reason why many among them could not have started their life many, many thousands of years ago. But there is no evidence that any of them predate the Flood. Even with the assumptive cross-matching method, the cut-off number seems to be around 4½ to 5 thousand rings. This is strongly consistent with expectations based on the Bible.

    Why no older trees?

    The fact that the magnificent patriarchs of the forest discussed here have stood silently growing for thousands of years gives glory to God, the Master Designer. It also suggests that they must be virtually impregnable to attack by natural pests, diseases, wildfires and the like. The dilemma for long-age believers, who scoff at the Bible’s account of a global Flood, is this: if there are trees around that can last that long, why not longer? Why are there none growing today which are, say, 7, 8 or 9 thousand years old by straight-forward tree-ring counting?
    This is no mystery to the Bible believer, as it is firm evidence consistent with God’s Word. The Bible’s record of a global Flood is true and can be trusted.

    Long-age plant claims wither

    There have been many claims of plants other than trees being supposedly older than 10,000 years, including the King’s Holly of Tasmania (which was based on fossil remains near the plant) and a colony of Box Huckleberry (based on growth estimates over an area of 25 km2/10 miles2) in Pennsylvania, USA. The most notable claims, however, have been about the Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentate) of North America. It is a very common, unspectacular-looking shrub that thrives in the extreme, hot desert regions of both North and South America. The ‘granddaddy’ of them all is a plant named ‘King Clone’. Found in 1980, it was claimed to be 11,700 years old. But this date has been much revised, with scientists now speculating about an age of 7,500 years or less.1

    In times of drought, the Creosote Bush looks more dead than alive. When there is plentiful water, it bursts to life with a foliage of waxy green leaves that ‘colours’ the desert. When crushed, its resins smell like creosote,2 hence its name.

    Its growth cycle begins as a single plant. As the original shrub gets older, the stem and branches at its centre die and get covered with sand. However, the branches on the outward edges continue to grow to become the main plant. This process is repeated over and over again (for many years) as each new bush grows and dies, eventually forming rings of small creosote bushes stretching out over many hundreds of metres. This is a form of natural cloning.3
    Dating is assumed by estimating the growth rate at which the rings of bushes increase. The debate regarding the age of King Clone demonstrates the inexactness of this uniformitarian approach; it is impossible to accurately determine a plant’s age based on current growth rates.

    References and notes

    1. Unassuming California bush may be the world’s oldest living thing, 2 July 2002.
    2. Creosote is a dark, oily liquid obtained by distilling tar. It is used preserving wood.
    3. Desert tortoise preserve committee, 2 July 2002.

    References and notes

    1. We are here using the word ‘living’ in a biological sense. By Biblical usage, plants are not nephesh chayyah (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה = living creatures), hence their biological death does not have the same Biblical significance as that of those creatures that are (antelopes, for instance). Return to text.
    2. Discovery, 1 July 2002. Return to text.
    3. Variable production of growth rings in Bristlecone Pines, 26 June 2002. Return to text.
    4. Morris, H.M., The Biblical Basis for Modern science, Master Books, Green Forest, p. 418, 2002. Return to text.
    5. A paper is in preparation for the next International Conference on Creationism, as well as for submission to CMI’s refereed journal, Journal of Creation. Return to text.
    6. Living tree ‘8,000 older than Christ’(?), Creation 17(3):26, 1995. Return to text.
    7. Growth characteristics, 1 July 2002. Return to text.
    8. Among the oldest living beings, 2 July 2002. Return to text.
    9. Trees, 2 July 2002. Return to text.
    10. Apparently, one ancient Bristlecone was felled by a young student for research purposes. Return to text.
    11. Humungus fungus, , 30 July 2002. Return to text.
    12. Largest tree a mere stripling, 11 December 2000. Return to text.
    13. A new age for the world’s largest tree, , 12 December 2000. Return to text.
    (Available in Haitian Creole and Romanian)

    Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)

    Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.

    Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

    However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.

    Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such the notion. Creationists have shown that the biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.

    Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

    Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

    Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon ‘clock’ would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Creation Answers Book, chapter 4).

    The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2

    The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.


    Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.


    1. Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47–54, 1986. Return to text.
    2. Newgrosh, B., Living with radiocarbon dates: a response to Mike Baillie. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 5:59–67, 1992. Return to text.
    3. Rohl, David, A Test of Time, Arrow Books, London, Appendix C, 1996. Return to text.
    (Available in Spanish)


    Remember, C-14 dating is unreliable and it is what Darwinists LOVE to use to assign dates to things.   Why do you suppose that is?   Why do you suppose they ignore the helium present in granitic zircons?  Why do they ignore polonium radiohalos?   Why is it that the magma temperatures support the rapid tectonic plate subduction associated with the Flood and Darwinists ignore that, too?   I say Darwinists do not want to know the truth and will ignore evidence and perhaps even destroy it to avoid their brutish inelegant foolish worldview to continue to be promoted to the unwitting world.  Makes sense to me.  You, the reader, are responsible for your own education.   You are responsible for your own destiny.   You are unwise to just believe what you are told without thinking about it critically.   If you investigate the evidence carefully and decide that you are a Darwinist, then you have done due diligence.  But don't swallow it whole without knowing what it really is and what it really says.   Don't worry, I will help!

    Okay, one more on Biblical Geology:

    Q&A Topics

    by Tas Walker

    Don't varves prove that world is older than the Bible says?

    Varves are rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says. But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon! And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).
    When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position. Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions. A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.
    Much is often made of the Green River varves, in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.

    It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses. Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers! Some sceptics have claimed that alkali merely ‘cuts grease’, evidently ignorant of the elementary chemistry involved, i.e. base-catalyzed hydrolysis of polymers, which would do the opposite of preserving the fish. Another problem for the varve explanation is that the number of bands is not consistent across the formation as it should be if they were annual deposits.

    But evaporites need more time than the Bible allows

    Similar bands in some huge deposits containing calcium carbonate and calcium sulphate in Texas are used to argue the case for long ages. One explanation says the deposits were formed when the sun evaporated seawater—hence the term ‘evaporite deposits’. Naturally, to make such large deposits in this way would take a long time. However, the high chemical purity of the deposits shows they were not exposed to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years. Rather, it is more likely that they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity—a hydrothermal deposit.

    There are too many fossils to have lived on earth at one time

    This argument claims that if all the fossil animals could be resurrected, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 0.5 metres (1.5 feet). So they could not have come from a single generation of living creatures buried by the Flood.

    Not surprisingly, the substance disappears when the detail is examined. The number of fossils is calculated from an abnormal situation—the Karroo formation in South Africa. In this formation the fossils comprise a ‘fossil graveyard’—the accumulation of animal remains in a local ‘sedimentary basin’. It is certainly improper to apply this abnormally high population density to the whole earth. The calculation also uses incorrect information on today's animal population densities and takes no account of the different conditions that likely applied before the Flood.

    But there is too much coal for a young earth

    Another argument used against the Bible time-line is that the pre-Flood world could not have produced enough vegetation to make all the coal. But again, this argument is based on wrong assumptions. The pre-Flood land area was almost certainly greater before all the Floodwaters were released onto the surface of the earth. Also, the climate was probably much more productive before the Flood. Furthermore, it has been discovered that much coal was derived from forests which floated on water. So, calculations based only on the area of land would be wrong. And finally, the estimates of how much vegetation is needed are based on the wrong idea that coal forms slowly in swamps and that most of the vegetation rots. The Flood would have buried the vegetation quickly, producing a hundred times more coal than from a swamp.

    Fossil forests prove that the world is old

    The petrified forests of Yellowstone National Park have often been used to argue against Bible chronology. These were once interpreted as buried and petrified in place—as many as 50 successive times, with a brand new forest growing upon the debris of the previous one. Naturally, such an interpretation would require hundreds of thousands of years to deposit the whole sequence and is inconsistent with the Bible time-scale. But this interpretation is also inconsistent with the fact that the tree trunks and stumps have been broken off at their base and do not have proper root systems. Furthermore, trees from different layers have the same ‘signature’ ring pattern, demonstrating that they all grew at the same time.

    Rather than 50 successive forests, the geological evidence is more consistent with the trees having been uprooted from another place, and carried into position by catastrophic volcanic mudflows — similar to what happened during the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980, where waterlogged trees were also seen to float and sink with the root end pointing downwards.

    How could Noah cover the ark with pitch if pitch formed during the Flood?

    The origin of pitch is also used to ridicule the account of Noah in the Bible. Pitch is a petroleum residue, we are told, and creationists say that petroleum was formed by the Flood. So, where did Noah get the pitch to seal the Ark (Genesis 6:14)? This old argument stems from ignorance of how pitch can be made. The widespread use of petroleum is a 20th century phenomenon. How did they seal wooden ships hundreds of years ago before petroleum was available? In those days, pitch was made from pine tree resin.30 A huge pitch-making industry flourished to service the demand.

    Is there too much sedimentary rock?

    Some attempts to discredit the Bible are wildly absurd—like the idea that there is too much sedimentary rock in the world to have been deposited by the one-year Flood. It is claimed that the Ark would have floated on an ocean of ‘earthy soup’ and no fish could have survived. This argument takes no account of how water actually carries sediment. The claim naïvely assumes that all the sediment was evenly mixed in all the water throughout the Flood year, as if thoroughly stirred in a ‘garden fishpond’. Sedimentation does not occur like this. Instead, moving water transports sediment into a ‘basin’ and, once deposited, it is isolated from the system. The same volume of water can pick up more sediment as it is driven across the continents, for example, by earth movements during the Flood.

    Don't coral reefs take millions of years to grow?

    Actually, what was thought to be ‘coral reef’ turns out to be thick carbonate platforms, most probably deposited during the Flood. The reef is only a very thin layer on top. In other cases, the ‘reef’ did not grow in place from coral but was transported there by water.

    Don't chalk deposits take millions of years to accumulate?

    Chalk accumulation is not steady state but highly episodic. Under cataclysmic Flood conditions, explosive blooms of tiny organisms like coccolithophores could produce the chalk beds in a short space of time.

    But granites need millions of years to cool

    Not when the cooling effects of circulating water are allowed for.

    Metamorphic rocks take millions of years to form

    Metamorphic reactions happen quickly when there is plenty of water, just as the Flood would provide.

    It would take millions of years to erode kilometers of sediment covering metamorphic rocks

    Only at the erosion rates observed today. There is no problem eroding kilometres of sediment quickly with large volumes of fast-moving water during the Flood.

      For more details, including references where further information can be obtained, see Geology and the Young Earth.