Search This Blog

Monday, July 30, 2012

Three Sisters formation in Australia? Formed by Noahic Flood events. Three follow-up posts and then a finishing coup de grâce!

Creation Ministries International is a ministry and a scientific organization.   The members thereof fully disclose their allegiance to the concept that God created the Universe and all things in it, including the Earth and all basic organisms in sinless perfection.   They assert that the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden led to sin and death and a Universe that is running downhill from energy to entropy.  They believe that the Earth was created by God and the base rocks were likely formed at the origin of the planet, while the sedimentary rock formations around the globe are primarily a result of the Noahic Flood and the dynamic post-Flood era that ushered in an Ice Age and led to secondary formations, layers and alterations to the layers laid down in the Flood itself.   The foundational belief that the Bible is true and the Word of God is inherent to the staff of Creation Ministries International, which would be a normal worldview for a Christian.

Darwinists in general deny that God created the Universe and all things and also deny the Fall of mankind, an historic Adam and Eve and the Noahic Flood.  They specifically claim that all organisms evolved from non-living matter by chance and generally believe that the entire Universe just happened to pop into existence by chance as well.   They adhere to a naturalistic materialistic philosophy and are generally atheists or atheopaths.   There are some who do believe that God created and then used evolution to make life, however, this does not jive with the Bible so those who claim to believe the Bible will eventually have to choose between Darwin and Bible if they intend to live a logical life.   Theistic evolutionists find themselves in both camps and frankly Old Earth Creationists also find themselves in opposition to the Bible in the end.

Science does not belong to either side.    In fact science is agnostic about metaphysical matters, it is man who brings his worldview with him to the lab or the dig.   Naturalists have no claim to science, in fact if anyone does it would be Christians, as it was Christians who devised the scientific method and laid the foundations for modern scientific research and devised most basic scientific disciplines.  

Here I present an article about the Three Sisters formation in Australia by Tas Walker and then present a few links with follow-ups to the original article.   Darwinists use derision, unfounded claims and complete and utter lies in an attempt to falsify the claims presented by Walker and aka Creation Ministries International, but Walker patiently and thoroughly refutes their claims as shown by the three links that follow the original article.  Walker also was and is willing to include new information, such as the tree/concretion question.   Tas Walker:

Three Sisters: evidence for Noah's Flood

Getting to know the three sisters reveals more than just natural beauty

Photo by R. Donoghoe
three sisters

Each year, millions of tourists visit Katoomba, a city one hour’s drive west of Sydney, Australia’s biggest city. There they enjoy the spectacular Three Sisters. These ‘ladies’ are not a group of performers, but a huge rock outcrop. Set in a World Heritage Area of the Blue Mountains, the Sisters are now something of an Australian icon.

Near the lookout at Echo Point, the Sisters watch over an impressive valley. On a clear day, Kings Tableland looms in the distance (see panorama, left). Throughout the day, the vista alters as the changing sunlight transforms the magnificent colours of the Three Sisters. At night, their floodlit shape looks stunning against the blackness of the night sky.

Most visitors don’t realize they are looking at compelling evidence for the global Flood described in the Bible.

Figure 1
Figure 1: Many geologists consider the Sydney Basin (pink) is connected to large, long sedimentary basins (lighter pink) to the north. This sedimentary network is over 2,000 km (1,200 miles) long and contains rich deposits of coal and gas, the products of buried vegetation. Overlaying sediments have been omitted from the figure.

The sandstone, of which the Sisters are made, points to huge watery deposition. The valleys and gorges, shaped when the Sisters were carved, are evidence of immense watery erosion. The Biblical global Flood explains this deposition and erosion. Let’s look a bit closer.

It’s not difficult to appreciate that the sandstone covers an immense area. From the lookout, we can see that the same rocks form steep cliffs all around the gorge. Before the magnificent valley was eroded, the sandstone strata covered a large area.

Vast size

But the strata extend much further than we can see from the lookout. From Katoomba they reach 160 km (100 miles) south, 160 km north, and 160 km to the east—an immense rectangular deposit of sediment (see Figure 1).1 Geologists call it the Sydney Basin, the resting place for massive volumes of sediment eroded from the Lachlan Fold Belt to the west, and the New England Fold Belt to the east.

Many geologists consider the Sydney Basin is the southern end of a 250-km (160-mile) wide system extending 2,000 km (1,200 miles) north (Figure 2).2 The immense size of the deposit is evidence for catastrophe—but there’s more.

Deposited catastrophically

We see that the sand in the Three Sisters is deposited in layers. The road cuttings in the area give a better view, or we can examine the overlying Hawkesbury Sandstone that forms steep cliffs around Sydney (Figure 4). Joining the prominent, horizontal layers is a faint, inclined layering called ‘cross bedding.’ This indicates that the sand was deposited by flowing water.

Figure 2
Figure 2: Later, kilometre–thick deposits of sediment and vegetation were dumped on top, concealing the connection between the Sydney Basin and the northern basins. The later–deposited sediments contain abundant water resources in what is called the Great Artesian Basin.

Figure 6 shows how moving water makes a wavy pattern in the sand on the bottom. The water pushes the grains of sand up the back of each sand wave until they reach the top. Then they roll down the front of the sand wave. Thus, the sand waves move forward, forming the pattern of cross bedding. The orientation of the sand waves indicates the direction of flow. The thickness of the cross beds indicates the speed of the water and its depth.3

From the size of the cross beds, geologist Dr Patrick Conaghan, Senior Lecturer at the School of Earth Sciences at Macquarie University, determined the conditions under which the sand was deposited. In 1994 he described a wall of water up to 20 m (65 feet) high and 250 km (150 miles) wide coming down from the north at enormous speed.4 This catastrophic interpretation is consistent with what we would expect during the Biblical Flood.

The sandstone formations are very thick, ranging from 100 m (330 ft) to 200 m (660 ft) or more.1 To accumulate such thick deposits of sand, the water level in the Sydney Basin must have risen continuously. Otherwise, the sand would have been carried through the area to deeper water. Yet, in the thick sandstone formations, there are no indications of extended time breaks between deposition (e.g. inhabited horizons containing preserved fossil communities). Deposition from the fast-flowing water was continuous in an ever-deepening basin.

Figure 3: A vertically-exaggerated east–west cross section of these later sediments, which were the last sediments deposited as the floodwaters were rising on the Earth.

Click here for larger view 

The evidence therefore points to huge volumes of sediment being eroded from the continent and carried in a ‘river’ hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long. No river on the face of the Earth today is anywhere near this large. This ‘river’ sorted the sediment into its different sizes, which is why so much sand was deposited in the same place.

Thus the Three Sisters speak of unusual catastrophic deposition, consistent with the global Flood described in the Bible. The sand was deposited as the water level was increasing on the Earth, during the first part of the one-year Flood—the Inundatory stage.5 Some of the sand formations may have been deposited in just a few days.2

Rapid erosion

Photo by Tas Walker
Figure 4
Figure 4
Well after the sediments of the Sydney Basin were deposited, in the second part of the Flood the offshore ocean floor began to sink and the Blue Mountains began to rise. The water then covering Australia began to run off the continent. As it did, it rapidly cut the landscapes. 

At first the water flowed in sheets, shaving flat vast areas of the continent sometimes producing ‘planation’ surfaces. Then, as the flow reduced, the water cut wide valleys like those we see around the Sydney area. As the volume of water continued to decrease, narrower valleys were cut at the edges of plateaus, like those we see from the Three Sisters lookout (Echo Point).

Photo by Tas Walker
Figure 5
Figure 5
When the water had completely receded and the land was dry, large valleys remained where the flow had been. These valleys end abruptly in blind, steep walls. We see waterfalls today at the ends of these valleys, but they are only tiny remnants compared with the flow of water that eroded the valleys (Figure 5). There is no way that such minuscule water flows could have carved the huge valleys. This pattern of erosion is exactly what we would expect during the final phase of the global Flood.

In the late 1700s, these steep cliffs prevented the early settlers of Sydney finding their way through the Blue Mountains to more grazing land. The first explorers followed the rivers, only to be stopped by the steep cul-de-sacs at the ends of the valleys. Little did they realize that these obstacles were produced by the drainage of Noah’s floodwater. Then, in 1813, the famous explorers Blaxland, Wentworth, and Lawson found their way using an innovative ridge-top route—by following the eroded remnants of the uplifted plateau.6

What about carbon dating?

One reason people don’t connect the Three Sisters with Noah’s Flood is that the rocks are supposed to be about 230 million years old. At this age they obviously could not have formed in a flood 4,500 years ago. However, there is a problem with the way rocks are dated. Basically, long-age geologists get the dates wrong because they make wrong assumptions about the past. In particular, they ignore the catastrophic effects of Noah’s Flood.

Diagram courtesy Steve Austin, Grand Canyon:onument to catastrophe, ICR
Figure 6
Figure 6
Long-age geologists assume that sedimentary rocks were deposited slowly, e.g. by rivers like those we see on Earth today. With so much sedimentary rock, they imagine that it took millions of years. But catastrophic conditions during Noah’s Flood would have deposited lots of sediment quickly and eliminated the need for millions of years. Evidence of such catastrophic deposition, as we have seen, is preserved in the rocks themselves.

For these rocks, long-age geologists have assigned an age of around 230 million years based on their fossil content and their relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region. Recently, a creationist geologist measured the carbon-14 content of a piece of wood found in a quarry in the overlying Hawkesbury Sandstone.7 Long-age geologists wouldn’t bother analyzing for carbon-14 because they believe the rock is 230 million years old. All carbon-14 should have disappeared by 50,000 years, at the most. There should be no carbon-14 left. However, the analysis confirmed a small but significant amount of carbon-14 in the wood—clear evidence that the sandstone is less than 50,000 years old. The small level of carbon-14 does not reflect an age, but rather the low concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere before the Flood (carbon-14 has been building up since the Flood).

Evidence of Noah’s Flood

The Three Sisters are an Australian tourist icon. They are also evidence of Noah’s Flood. These sandstone monuments display evidence of large-scale catastrophic deposition and immense watery erosion. That is exactly what we would expect from Noah’s Flood. Not only are the Three Sisters an icon of Australia, they are also an icon of the reliability of the Bible.

The phenomenon of vertical fossil tree trunks

Photo by Andrew Taylor
Broken tree trunks deposited vertically in thickly bedded sandstone 40 km (25 miles) north of Sydney, overlooking the South Pacific Ocean. Located on the eastern side of ‘Box Head’ in Bouddi National Park, the head forms the northern entrance to the Hawkesbury River.

This sandstone is part of the Gosford Formation. Lying under the Hawkesbury Sandstone, it is approximately equivalent to the formation comprising the Three Sisters, over 100 km (60 miles) west. Excellent cross bedding is obvious in the layers above the logs.

The blocky appearance of the deposit and the cross bedding point to deposition from deep, fast-flowing water.

The thickness of the deposit indicates that the water was continually deepening as the sand was being deposited.

These logs did not grow here but were washed into place.

The trunks are broken with no sign of soil or roots. They testify to the violent forces which uprooted and smashed an ancient forest, sorting roots and trunks from leaves and branches.

The leaves and branches were deposited in other strata of the Sydney Basin. They form the coal measures that are now mined for power generation.

Update 15 September 2008: Since writing this report I have been able to inspect close up these vertical objects at Box Head and discuss their identification with others. I described them here as being vertical logs but on closer inspection in the field they seem instead to be unusual iron concretions. There are numerous other vertical concretions of various shapes in the sandstone in that area. Even as iron concretions these objects are unusual in their shape and orientation.

Although these particular objects do not now appear to be tree trunks, it does not alter the fact that these sandstone deposits comprising the cliffs and the wave platform were deposited very quickly over a huge area pointing to the fact that the Sydney basin was formed by a large watery catastrophe, consistent with Noah’s Flood.

Related articles


  1. Jones, D.C. and Clark, N.R. (Eds.), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet 9030, New South Wales Geological Survey, Sydney, 1991. Return to text.
  2. Allen, D., Sediment transport and the Genesis Flood—Case studies including the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Sydney, CEN Tech. J. 10(3):358–378, 1996. Return to text.
  3. Austin, S.A. (Ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, California, pp. 33–35, 1994. Return to text.
  4. Woodford, J., Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf, The Sydney Morning Herald 30 April, 1994, p. 2. For more detail, see: Conaghan, P.J., The Hawkesbury Sandstone: gross characteristics and depositional environment, Bulletin, Geological Survey of New South Wales 26:188–253, 1980. Return to text.
  5. Walker, T.B., A Biblical geologic model, In: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 581–592, 1994; Return to text.
  6. Info Blue Mountains History Plaza, 29 November 2002. Return to text.
  7. Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999. Return to text.


The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah’s Flood in Australia

Shifting sands

Hawkesbury Sandstone deposited from a wall of water?

Interestingly, there is another Three Sisters formation that had a collapse in 2009 that took the top off of the middle "Sister." Do you catch the language in the au article that unconsciously supports the creationist position?  I'll bold the words so you do not miss them!

Sister, not apostle, crumbles into sea

September 28, 2009

Thomas Hunter

Dear sister ... one of the rock formations known as the 'Three Sisters' collapsed into the sea (top). Bottom: the rock before its collapse.
Dear sister ... one of the rock formations known as the 'Three Sisters' collapsed into the sea (top). Bottom: the rock before its collapse. 

One of the Twelve Apostles has risen again. The Great Ocean Road rock formation that collapsed into the sea last week was not one of the famous towers, but a sister stack.

One of the 'Three Sisters' sea stacks crumbled into the ocean on a weekend of high winds and punishing seas.

It was earlier thought the rock formation which collapsed was one of the Twelve Apostles, but a Parks Victoria spokesperson confirmed it was one of three smaller pillars sitting behind an outcropping known as the Razorback.

"They are not part of the Apostles," said Port Campbell National Park ranger Natasha Johnson.

"The are located east of the Razorback visitors' site which is in the Loch Ard Gorge precinct. It was a fairly small rock stack compared to the Twelve Apostles or some of the other rock stacks in the area.

"There have been big swells over the past few months and we've also had quite a lot of heavy rain, and that has possibly contributed to the collapse.
"But being limestone, it erodes very quickly compared to other hard rocks like granite. It obviously had quite a few weaker areas and that lead to the collapse." 

Ms Johnson said the Southern Ocean soft limestone cliffs are a work-in-progress, with nature constantly redefining the shape of the coastline. 

Earlier this month, a large section of cliff fell into the sea about a kilometre from the lookout at the Twelve Apostles. In June this year, the Island Archway near Loch Ard Gorge collapsed leaving two stone pillars jutting from the ocean. In 2005, the Twelve Apostles were reduced to eight when a large stack crumbled into the sea.


So there is a logical disconnect when Darwinists try to proclaim that the rocks that form(ed) formations such as the Three Sisters and the Twelve Apostles are in the vicinity of 230 millions years old and yet at the same time point out the transitory nature of limestone and sandstone and similar rocks.  You cannot have it both ways.   You cannot claim that rock layers are incredibly ancient and then also assert that they erode very quickly.   The AGE writer makes two statements about sedimentary rocks which are generally true, gleaned from Port Campbell National Park ranger Natasha Johnson.

"..."But being limestone, it erodes very quickly compared to other hard rocks like granite."
"...Southern Ocean soft limestone cliffs are a work-in-progress, with nature constantly redefining the shape of the coastline. "

The coastal Three Sisters, having been formed within the last approximately 4300 years, were and are vulnerable to collapse and/or erosion because they are relatively recent compared to the long ages claimed by Darwinists.   The more famous Three Sisters formation discussed by Tas Walker is well away from the ocean and therefore will not face such constant weathering.   Nevertheless sedimentary rocks were formed by water and by water they can rather quickly erode.   Now for the coup de grâce!

Collapsed Apostle tells a story

5 July 2005

Geologist Dr Tasman Walker of Creation Ministries International said that the famous ‘Twelve Apostles’ off the coast of Victoria, Australia have eroded much faster than most people imagine.
Before the collapse
After the collapse
Credit: Parks Victoria
Going, going, gone. Just after 9:18 am, the 50-metre ‘Apostle’ collapsed within seconds leaving a heap of rubble. Jesus’ Apostles indicated the earth was young, and these Apostles do too.

Australians were shocked to learn that one of the ‘Twelve Apostles’ crumpled into the Southern Ocean just after 9 am on Sunday 3 July 2005, leaving just a heap of rubble.
A Sydney family touring the area captured remarkable before-and-after images of the disintegrated rock formation.

The 50-metre-high sea stack, second from the viewing platform, began to shimmer and collapsed into a heap within seconds.
A Parks Victoria spokesperson said she was shocked by the collapse.

‘You think these structures are going to last for a while and certainly not [think you’ll] actually see one collapse in your lifetime.’

According to geologist Walker, the reaction to the collapse illustrates how the public have been conditioned with geological ideas that do not match reality.

‘We are told that The Apostles started to form up to 20 million years ago when erosion gradually attacked the limestone cliffs of Port Campbell. No wonder everyone is surprised when one collapses. 

‘But there was a similar collapse in 1990 when London Bridge, a natural rock arch to one of the stacks, gave way not long after people walked over it. Two people had to be rescued by helicopter. 

‘About 10 years ago in Western Australia nine people were killed when similar limestone strata collapsed onto the beach during an inter-school surfing competition. 

‘The stacks are not millions of years old. The limestone strata were deposited during Noah’s Flood, as the floodwaters flowed from the emerging Australian continent.

‘That was just four and a half thousand years ago.’
‘Most geologists do not appreciate the geological effects of Noah’s Flood,’ says Walker. ‘If they did, people would be more aware of geological hazards, and not think that the rocks are a permanent feature of the landscape.’

The Twelve Apostles are icons of the Australian landscape. They are featured around the world as a symbol of the Commonwealth Games being hosted in Melbourne in 2006.

The changed landscape means the many photos and tourist promotions may have to be re-shot.

Before the collapse, the Twelve Apostles numbered nine, but now they are only eight.

Alex Green, the local Parks Victoria ranger said ‘It was one of the bigger [stacks] and integral to what used to be the view.’

It was almost like a building being demolished straight down on itself. The debris has turned the ocean muddy brown but the rubble is expected to vanish within weeks.

Geologist Walker said, ‘These eroding Apostles have a similar message to the original Apostles of Jesus’ time, one concerned with the authority and reliability of God’s Word. This world is young, just as the Bible records.’


We have collected sedimentary rocks from all over North America and have several of them incorporated into gardens around our home.   I have observed the workings of temperature, sun and precipitation upon the rocks we've left outside.   Mudstone degrades quickly but sandstone and limestone begin to show signs of weathering as well.   There are gradients to limestone, with some being harder than others.   Limestone generally cuts easily enough to use in buildings that are expected to stand for decades and perhaps centuries but it can and will wear, as engineers well know.   The effects of wind and some pollutants do degrade buildings and monuments made of limestone because sedimentary rocks are simply not as hard as bedrock, being made during by the Flood event less than 4500 years ago.

Both the facts behind the sedimentary rock layers of Australia and landmarks like the Twelve Apostles and the two differing Three Sisters specifically support formation by the Noahic Flood and post-Flood era rather than a result of millions of years of uniformitarian processes.   That they wear away quickly should not be a surprise to Christian creationists because we understand how and when they were made.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

DNA, the Cell and Malaria. Silent Evidence Cries out for Creation and Common Sense!

I am fearfully and wonderfully made!   Thus saith the Lord in Psalms 139:14 (ESV)

"I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  Wonderful are your works"

From Biologic Perspectives:


Things to note: 

ONE - There is no way such complex and orderly and precise organic machines happened by chance!   Darwinists, give it up, you embarrass yourselves!   The more you know about organisms the more ridiculous the concept that they just kind of banged together over time becomes.  Computers invented by man use a binary code.  Organisms devised by God have a four-letter code, making it remarkably more robust than what man has devised.   Certainly scientists who study molecular machines have started disciplines like Biomimetics and Biomimicry to learn from molecular machines and devices and systems and try to copy them for human use.  No place for Darwinism in these disciplines as science admits that God does it better and attempts to copy His designs.

TWO - The speaker mentions leaving out "error correction" early in the presentation.  That error correction is the part of the so-called "junk DNA" that seeks to find and eliminate mutations.   Not only are mutations NOT a creative force for organisms, they are in fact deleterious and there is a part of DNA that codes for error correction, much like a Quality Process System used, for example, on factory assembly lines, making sure that the products are uniform and within the prescribed limits.    So Charles Darwin did recognize speciation (in part by reading the work of Creationist Edward Blyth), but Darwin had the process completely backwards.   Organisms are devolving from the original kinds, the amount of information in speciated organisms is less than in the original baramin and, if distance and environmental factors cause it, some genetic information is permanently lost.   Entire organisms can go extinct, such as the Dodo.   Many organisms that were found in the fossil record and later mentioned in early human history post-Flood, such as dinosaurs, have gone extinct and often it has been mankind that sought and accomplished their extinction.  

THREE - The persistence of the malaria plague is an indictment against radical environmentalists.   Rachel Carson's book, SILENT SPRING, was a poorly researched pack of lies and false assumptions that caused government agencies and international agencies to outlaw DDT and cease chemical warfare against mosquitoes in Africa in particular, where people are unlikely to have air conditioning, OFF! and/or good screens.   So when you think of the millions of lives lost to malaria since 1962, you can thank radical eco-nuts and Rachel Carson first and foremost. Fortunately for some, DDT is still manufactured in India and is used in some areas today.   But most of the lives that could be saved by DDT are not given the chance because of various national and world initiatives to prohibit or limit its use, such as the Stockholm Convention. 

It is quite a dichotomy of the mind and yet the very folks who believe in Darwinism feel compelled to interfere with the process Darwinism describes (survival of the fittest) and decide what creatures should not go extinct.   Most often it is not a basic organism but merely a variety thereof that will get radical eco-nuts up in arms.   We must save this subspecies of fish at the expense of thousands of farmers and farm workers!!!  Why?  Don't you guys believe in evolution?  Why are you fighting it if so?  Darwinists and eco-nuts are far from either logical or rational where the environment is concerned.

Rewind, rewind!    Back in 2008 I pointed this eco-nuttery out AND warned of $4.00 gas prices soon (and it will get much, much worse later if Barack Obama is re-elected).   Amendments to the Constitution and in fact the entire document is being ignored as the President has begun ruling by fiat via Czars and Agencies while doing so without a budget and doubling the national debt.   Kind of like an 8th grader with his parent's credit cards going on a buying spree?  So his socialist and eco-nut buddies are killing off the economy while a few Obama cronies live large.

Meanwhile, unscientific and unproven science-y ideas that banned DDT have killed millions of people.    No surprise as Darwinist philosophy has no regard for human life.  

God made a fantastic Universe with both enormous and awe-inspiring grandeur on both the macro and micro level.   We humans rebelled against God and brought in sin and death, so a fallen Universe is inexorably falling apart before our eyes.   The Laws of Thermodynamics will not be frustrated, they will continue to operate no matter what Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or Phil Gingerich say or write.  Yet even in a fallen Universe we see wonders that cause us to pause and wonder from glimpses within the cell to amazing pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope of objects millions of miles away in deep space. 

From the Hubble Telescope

Big Lie #3 - Man-Made Global Warming is proven scientific fact and is therefore a pressing worldwide concern.

Thanks to Cox & Forkum, Mylene and the Scottthong website for the cool cartoons!

Al Gore to the contrary, man-made global warming has not been proven and, in fact, many scientists believe a cooling period is coming. I pointed out in that last post on the subject that Al Gore is actually making money by promoting the idea of man-made global warming, making anything he says on the issue entirely suspect. I also pointed out that the mandate to deal with the so-called crisis actually comes from the looniest environmental groups and goofs imaginable. Remember this quote?

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?” ---- Maurice F. Strong, one of the worlds leading environmentalists and senior advisor to various U.N. Secretaries-General

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

So, in fact, we may be heading into the kind of winters in which the Thames freezes over and we in the midwest are all "Over the river and through the woods to Grandmother's house we go" fighting through a foot of snow. I hope you review my last article, and now allow me to give Phil Brennan a soapbox:

Mankind’s Deadliest Foe:Radical Environmentalism

by Phil Brennan, Lincoln Heritage Institute Trustee
and Editor, Wednesday on the Web

Millions of Africans are dying or facing death, Americans are reeling as gas prices soar, threatening to wreck the economy and drive many into poverty, famine is rearing its ugly head in many areas of the world, and available remedies for these and other serious problems are ignored, ridiculed or stymied.

None of this is by accident. It is instead the direct result of the sinister activities of a small but politically powerful clique of a privileged and wealthy elite which hates humans and will not be satisfied until humanity has been driven from this planet.

I’m talking about the members of the radical environmentalist movement, and I’m laying the blame for the continuing success of their anti-mankind efforts on every single one of us who have stood by and allowed these monsters to impose their hatred inspired agenda on the world.

As a result of our inaction in the face of their assaults on mankind, we have allowed a million of our African brothers and sisters and their helpless infants to die of malaria when that scourge of mankind could have been completely eradicated by the use of a totally harmless chemical, DDT, which the radical environmentalist movement has stripped from our arsenal of disease fighting weapons.

Let it be said loud and clear: There is not a single shred of evidence that DDT poses the least kind of threat to the health of the planet’s people, yet on the flimsiest of grounds created by an alarmist book, Silent Spring by the late Rachel Carson (based on myth rather than science), this life-saving chemical is banned and whole populations die.

Think that’s an accident? Think again. As I quoted Michael Berliner, co-chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif., in last week’s column, the mankind hater’s goal is nothing less than the extinction of humanity.

He quoted philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’ 

“In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): ‘Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet.…Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.’ Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.”

Gasoline prices are soaring. Prices at the pump are pushing toward $4.00 a gallon and predictions are being heard that at least $10.00 is a probable pump price in the near future.

What we’re talking about here is economic chaos, the beggaring of what was not long ago the most prosperous economy on the face of the earth. In one fell swoop, the economy of the United States is being destroyed and widespread poverty is about to grip an America whose people cannot survive the deadly attack on their limited incomes that soaring gas prices constitute. Remember, just about everything we need for survival, food, clothing etc., comes to us by fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Incredible hikes in fuel prices can only lead to incredible hikes in the prices we pay for commodities. We are about to become a third world country.

Who’s to blame? Well, despite the claims of elitists who look down their noses at the rest of us, it’s not the fault of those millions of Americans who drive SUVs, consume electric power generated by the use of fossil fuels, or barbecue hamburgers on the backyard grill. The fault is directly traceable to those political powerful elites who will not allow us to use the virtually unlimited supply of petroleum that lies within the United States, in Alaska’s ANWR area and in the gulf where China and just about everybody else but is sucking up petroleum.

There’s enough oil in the continental U.S. alone to give us all we’ll ever need yet we are not allowed to go after it.

It’s recently been revealed that the Bakken Formation in the Great Plains holds an incredibly huge deposit of petroleum. Estimates of its potential range as high as the U.S. Geological Survey’s figure of more than 400 billion barrels. In contrast, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves, and the Russians just 60 billion.

As Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues, has written, “Until recently, Bakken was thought too expensive to drill. But oil is now at $100 per barrel. Even more important, new computer-controlled drills can go sideways for hundreds of feet to suck the petroleum out of oil-bearing shale strata, instead of just punching short vertical holes through shallow rock layers. 

“At the higher end of its potential, Bakken could change the political economics of the world. One hundred billion barrels would be worth $9 trillion at today’s prices. Will America turn its back? Will we give up our autos, airplanes and air conditioners if the oil to power them is affordable and “home-grown.”

Why aren’t we in a mad rush to get our hands on this bonanza Mother Nature has bestowed on us?
Ask Byron Dorgan and his liberal chums, who The Business Investor’s Daily explained are opposed to drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR’s frozen tundra, the so-called “pristine” Alaska area that resembles the surface of the moon when it’s not covered with snow.

Wrote the paper, “He and his fellow Democrats also oppose new oil production in the Outer Continental Shelf and off the Florida coast where China and Cuba are gleefully setting up rigs 50 miles from Key West.
Dorgan and is ilk are captives of big environmentalism. And we’re letting them get away with it. They want to kill us all, and we’re giving them the weapons to do it. In Pogo’s words, “We’ve met the enemy and it is us.”

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist and World War II Marine who writes for He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s.


Millions of Africans have died of malaria due to the banning of DDT. This is a curse akin to the AIDS epidemic and it is laid at the door of environmentalists. Now they would like to take down Western Society by taking away our energy resources or making them so expensive that our economies fail. Lies laid upon lies = Global Warming and Oil-Drilling Derangement.

If you are truly interested in the subject of DDT and the impact of banning the usage thereof? 

Wrongful ban on DDT costs lives 

July 14, 2004

The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. 
by Walter Williams 
Jewish World Review July 2004 

Ever since Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring,” environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted.

While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that “should not be banned.” According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 — Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, “Malaria and the DDT Story,” Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that “Malaria is a human tragedy,” adding, “Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick.” 

The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:  “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” 
Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said, “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”

Spraying a house with small amounts of DDT costs $1.44 per year; alternatives are five to 10 times more, making them unaffordable in poor countries. Rich countries that used DDT themselves threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.

One really wonders about religious groups, the Congressional Black Caucus, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world while at the same time accepting or promoting DDT bans and the needless suffering and death that follow. Mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well.

About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master’s degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. He teaches economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

DNA falsifies Darwinism...Intelligence is the signature of the Designer!

DNA should have been the death knell for Darwinism.   Once we understood that organisms are a bit like organic computers, but far more sophisticated and efficient than we could understand and that all the works of mankind paled in comparison, all scientists should have said, "Gee, there has to be a God after all!"

That is what scientists SHOULD have said.  However, the strong pull of religion has kept them from admitting even to themselves what the implications of DNA and the makeup of the cell actually are and why God is the only logical answer.   Atheism and Atheopathy (hatred of God) as the religion of the majority of scientists, educators and journalists means that the worlds of science, education and information media are dominated by religious zealots who fly under the radar as high priests of the Atheist Naturalist Darwinist religion because they all pretend that naturalism and darwinism are not religious dogmatic aspects of atheism. 

Here is Stormbringer.   You could also call him Cowboy Bob?  Two Stormbringer posts to introduce his blog to you and to illustrate why Darwinism is a religion rather than science.   It is a complete and utter failure scientifically.   Organisms are quite obviously designed and designed to be far more efficient than anything mankind can yet devise! Read, watch and learn...

July 22, 2012

Video: DNA Shows Failure of Evolution

The arrogance of some scientists (and the unwashed masses who adore them) is astounding.

When they could not determine the uses of some human organs, they were called "vestigial", or "leftover from our evolutionary past". (This led to unnecessary (but profitable!) surgeries to remove appendixes, adenoids and so on.) Later, the so-called leftovers were determined to have functions that were hitherto unknown, much to the embarrassment of scientists.

At one time, the "simple" cell was considered to be rather well understood. Then technology advanced, and science advanced with it. The "simple" cell is not so simple after all. In fact, it is astonishingly complex — and it is still not fully understood.

Arrogance naturally spills over when studying the human genome. Since it is not fully understood, showy scientists (with their faulty evolutionist worldview) tag things they do not understand as "junk DNA". The fact is, DNA is also astonishingly complex. It would be much safer for scientists to label something as "not yet understood" rather than to pretend they know all about it, call it "junk", and then get humiliated later on.

When I pointed out the astonishing complexity of just one strand of DNA and how there is no way it could have formed by chance, an ignorant fundie evolutionist said, "It must have been less complex back then". (Yes, I get told things by people who are woefully ignorant of science all the time, but have faith in evolutionism.) This short video shows some of the complexity of DNA and the information exchanged contained within.

Stormbringer's blog is already linked for you. He is the guy who brings us the Question Evolution Project on facebook, among other things.   One more post for you...

July 27, 2012

Cowardly Atheists Protect Evolution

That's right, I said it! Protecting evolution from questioning, examination, contrary evidence and explanations — cowardice.

"You're crazy, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is a fact and doesn't need to be protected!"

Good job, Nicky, you said your lines well.

Evolution is protected by fundamentalist extremists who will go to almost any lengths to keep people from actually thinking:
The way I understand it, the way that science advances is for people to start with a proper foundation, question the findings, challenge existing theories, examine evidence, follow where the evidence leads and so on. Instead, not only are so many evolutionists cowards, but they are totalitarian cowards.

Now the thought police have actually banned the teaching of creation in the UK — even in religious education classes! Yep, teach creation and your school will lose its funding. Cowards. But what do you expect from people who willingly promote the fallacy of evolution? The assault on evolution is growing, including places like Question Evolution! and The Question Evolution Project. The storm is coming. Be afraid, evolutionists. Be very afraid.

There are not only numerous blogs and scientific sites that support Creation and/or Intelligent Design that it is beyond me to list them all, there are also numerous sites on YouTube and Facebook as well.  Back before the personal computer truly ushered in the Information Age, Darwinists could easily dominate the conversation in every information medium available to the researcher.   

I remember the days before computers, when you had to depend upon books and magazines and a few television stations and of course newspapers to get your information.  You could read through an complete encyclopedia and an unabridged dictionary and continually go back to the library to find books to read and not even scratch the surface of information now available online!   There is absolutely no excuse for ignorance in any subject that interests you now.   Which brings me to the point of this blog and the reason so many blogs and websites and organizations focus on the concept that is fundamental (or should be fundamental) to the life of every man and woman on Earth.   What is the meaning of life?

If you believe Darwinists, then really there is no point to living at all.   You are a random accident of chance, a amalgam of particles and charges, something that appears to be solid but is mostly relatively empty space, a temporary glitch in an existence that popped out of nothing and to nothing will return.   

But if you believe God, you were made to be exactly who you are.   God has a plan and a purpose to your life and you can discover what your calling is and pursue it.   Actually you will find that you have many callings, some general (see Ten Commandments and Salvation via Jesus Christ) and some specific.   I am specifically called by God to write this blog and so I write it.  He's called me to sing and teach and preach and work to spread His Word and shine His Light in many ways and various contexts.   I do my best to do His Will and I often fall short of what I could do.   I am fallible and I know it!   I will fall down time after time, but will I get back up and keep going?  So far the answer is YES!

No one is right all the time and it is highly unlikely that anyone is wrong all the time.   If you have believed in Darwinism it is okay to be wrong and that is quite fixable.   Will you open your mind and consider the evidence?

There is meaning to life in God! As to Darwinism? Beware the Jabberwock!

Gibberish is gibberish no matter the source.   Lewis Carroll was quite adept at making poems about nothing with nonsense words. His poem, Jabberwocky, begins below and will be inserted in blue sized large throughout this blogpost, starting above the gibberish definition:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.'


gib·ber·ish  (jbr-sh)
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

[Probably from gibber, to speak unintelligibly (of imitative origin) + -ish.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Stephen Hawking and a host of Darwinists who present themselves as scientists nevertheless often resort to gibberish to confound the average citizen.   Sir Isaac Newton knew better...

picture courtesy of Biblical Creation & Apologetics Ministries

To reveal this in simple terms, cue Russell Grigg and

Stephen Hawking: Is there meaning to life?


Flickr: Doug Wheller
Published: 22 July 2012 (GMT+10)
Under the banner title of Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design, the Discovery Channel has recently shown three TV episodes,1 narrated by Hawking, and titled respectively: Did God Create the Universe?, The Meaning of Life, and Key to the Cosmos. These are a visual re-presentation by Stephen Hawking of much of the material in his 2010 book, The Grand Design (co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow).2

The book was thoroughly reviewed and critiqued by CMI’s Jonathan Sarfati in his article Hawking atheopathy: Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence.3 In this article we shall discuss the first two of these episodes, and then give our answer to the questions raised therein. The third episode will be the subject of another article.

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
  Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
  And stood awhile in thought.


Episode 1: “Did God Create the Universe?


This was a re-run of the Curiosity TV program of the same title, shown in the USA and Australia in 2011, which we commented on in Curiosity: Did God create the universe? Prof. Hawking’s answer to the question in the title was:
There was no time before the big bang … for God to exist in. What happened at the beginning of the universe is the final key for removing the need of a creator of the universe. … There is no God who directs our fate. There is probably no heaven and no after-life either.
Really? Although the learned professor is a perceived authority on modern physics and cosmology, this does not make him an ‘information all-rounder’, i.e. an authority on theology, providence, eschatology, and immortality. Nor yet on historical or forensic science.4 Indeed most of the elements of the big bang theory as promoted by Stephen Hawking are now being challenged by many of his fellow evolutionist professors. These challenges include:
  1. Hawking’s belief that everything in the universe originated from nothing, which his peers say contradicts the principle that every effect needs a cause.
  2. Rather than there being nothing before the big bang, as Hawking claims, many evolutionist cosmologists are now trying to fabricate ways to explain how our present universe emerged from one or more preceding universes (while at the same time avoiding saying how the first one began).
  3. Invoking infinity, as Hawking does in the idea that everything in the universe was once in an infinitely small point of infinite density (a singularity). This is regarded by one expert as “the same as giving up or cheating” (see Dr Param Singh, the big bounce in What happened before the big bang?)
As details of all the above are available in our article, What happened before the big bang?, we shall not comment further here. However, we can’t help but wonder why a man of Professor Hawking’s undoubted mental acumen but limited health and strength feels the need to spend so much time and effort trying to convince the world that God does not exist. Is he perhaps trying to substantiate the wishful thinking of German atheist Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), who wrote: “We deny God; in denying God we deny accountability”?5

Episode 2: “The meaning of Life


In this program Prof. Hawking asks and then attempts to answer the question: “Is there a reason why we exist, a meaning to life?” He begins by telling us his personal axiom that everything in life is nothing more than physics.6
According to Hawking, the laws of physics not only produced the universe we live in, but also our minds.

The Game of Life


In support of the latter proposition, Hawking shows viewers a computer program called The Game of Life, invented by a John Conway in the 1970s. This is an arrangement of squares in a grid (something like a chessboard of unlimited size) that simulates a two-dimensional ‘universe’. Some squares in the grid can reproduce themselves and then amalgamate with each other, if the starting configuration has been given the right set of instructions to cause this to happen. Viewers are then told that “it is possible to imagine that something like The Game of Life, with only a few basic laws, might produce highly complex features, perhaps even intelligence.”

We suggest that this would depend very much on who was doing the imagining! This fanciful conclusion is a repeat from Hawking and Mlodinow’s book,7 in which it leads on to Hawking’s extraordinary claim that the universe created itself:
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6.8 Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.9
How can anything create itself before it exists?
The logical errors in this statement are almost too numerous to recount. Here are some:
  1. How can anything create itself before it exists?
  2. What intrinsic property does nothing have that enables it to create anything?
  3. Gravity is the force of attraction that arises between objects by virtue of their masses. So before any matter existed, no gravity existed. How then could it have operated before it existed?
  4. If any law of physics caused the universe to create itself, then that law must have existed before the universe began, i.e. before time began, and so that law must be outside of time. But how could that be?
  5. What (or who) created the laws of physics?
  6. Scientific laws do not create anything. They describe things that already exist, or processes that are observable and repeatable. They do not cause anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline it describes.
  7. Spontaneous creation … Just how do the laws of physics achieve this?
Intellectual nonsense does not suddenly become gospel truth because it is uttered by a famous savant.

Reality—subjective or absolute?


On this subject, Hawking advances the classical evolutionist line that reality is in the mind of the beholder. To do this he shows us a girl holding a glass bowl that contains a swimming goldfish. The world that the girl sees (a market place) looks very different from the same world as seen by the goldfish through its curved glass bowl. From this, Hawking tells us that he doesn’t think that one reality is more valid than another, so to him this means that reality itself is in the mind of the beholder, i.e. reality is subjective.

However, according to The New Oxford Dictionary of English, the primary meaning of ‘reality’ is: “The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” If the girl were in a similar glass bowl, and had eyes adjusted to the refractive index of water like the fish’s, then she would see the market place similarly to the way the fish sees it. And if either were blind, then they would not see the market place at all. The market place itself would not change as a result of being variously viewed, or cease to exist when not viewed at all. Nor is evidence for anything limited to sight. A market place in particular can be experienced by our other senses of smell, taste, touch, and hearing.

Hawking then introduces us to quarks as the invisible building blocks of protons, and he asks: “Are quarks a reality?” His own answer:
They exist only in so far as they are a model that works. This is called the concept of model-dependent reality. I believe this leads directly to the meaning of life.
This leads to the following exegesis by Hawking:
  1. “The brain is responsible not only for the reality we perceive, but also for our emotions and meaning too.”
  2. “Love and honour, right and wrong, are part of the universe we create in our minds just as a table, a plane, and a galaxy.”
  3. “The meaning of life is what you choose it to be. It is not somewhere out there but right between our ears. This makes us the lords of creation.”

Our answer


Hawking’s amateurish philosophizing raises the question: what happens when different brains create different ‘realities’ or have different ideas of right and wrong? They can’t all be right.

As Bible-believing Christians, we begin with the axiom that God does exist and has revealed Himself to man, and man has the ability to apprehend this revelation. This gives us different answers to the questions that puzzle Hawking.

Other realities include life after death and future judgment, as well as sin, forgiveness of sin, and peace with God.
  1. God, as revealed in the Bible, is the eternal uncaused first cause.
  2. God created the universe and everything in it.
  3. God chose to do this in six days about 6,000 years ago.
  4. God created mankind in His own image and likeness.
  5. There is another dimension to reality besides that which we can describe with our five senses, or in Hawking’s case assume if it substantiates a model. This is what God says exists. It includes Heaven and Hell, the Holy Spirit and Satan. And other realities include life after death and future judgment, as well as sin, forgiveness of sin, and peace with God.
  6. Because God created us, He had a purpose in doing so. Many parts of the Bible speak of this—our main purpose is simply to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.
Revelation 4:11 says, Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.

Readers’ comments

Jack C., Australia, 21 July 2012
Hawking is his own worst enemy. He comes with such ridiculous and impossible solutions to the origin of the Universe. He also insults people who believe in God. For example, he insulted people who believe in Heaven because they are afraid of the dark. Well, I responded back to him via email and told him I believe in Heaven but I'm not afraid of the dark. Yet another of his stupid theories bites the dust. As far as I'm concerned he's an embarrassment to both sides of the debate.

Joel T., Australia, 22 July 2012
I am shocked that Stephen Hawking has expressed such relativistic views. I knew that they were widespread, but I thought that people like him were immune to them. Most atheists I know would be deeply disappointed by his comments on the nature of reality.

josh F., Canada, 22 July 2012
The view that Hawking gives on reality is sad. If you kick a ball flat along the ground the fish would have seen the ball curve because of the curve on the glass bowl. In reality that ball went flat across the ground.

Mike J., Canada, 22 July 2012
1. 'He begins by telling us his personal axiom that everything in life is nothing more than physics.
- If that's the case, Hawking has presented us with a self-refuting argument. i.e. his statement isn't true (or false) or even meaningful... it's just matter in motion, and there's no reason to pay any attention to it. (Whatever attention is, if all is physics.}
2. Whether or not Hawking feels a need for a creator doesn't tell us anything about whether there is a creator. Everything seems like an intellectual puzzle for him, and not something objective or real. e.g. for Hawking God seems to be some kind of answer to a puzzle, rather than a real Person.
3. Reality is not the world the girl sees or the goldfish sees; but the world God sees. i.e. it's the world according to God.
Only an omniscient being could know what reality was.

michael S., United Kingdom, 22 July 2012
Science is supposed to stick to what it can tell us, facts about the natural world. So evolutionists abuse their position by voicing their anti-Theistic beliefs.
Such evolutionists are effectively saying; "I am a scientist, therefore when I tell you god doesn't exist, I am telling you as a scientist of great fame so you'd better listen to me because I am a pretty all-knowing dude."
Nothing the evolution-ilk have learnt had given them any spiritual insights, when they make comments about heaven and God, no offense to them, but they come off looking like wallies because that is not what they are qualified to tell us.
It's like a mathematician trying to explain the Mona Lisa, in terms of numbers, by telling us the picture is not art, and it actually a matter of numbers.

Mark J., Australia, 22 July 2012
Thank you for a great article. What angers me is the fact that this illogical rubbish masquerading as science is forced down the throats of an entire generation. People like Hawking and Dawkins are in a position to pressurise governments into stopping the only viable alternative (creation) being made available to students. They will pay a high price.

Anthony R., United Kingdom, 23 July 2012
I was struck by the following quote of Stephen Hawking: "What happened at the beginning of the universe is the final key for removing the need of a creator..."
The final key?! A key is something we use in order to gain access to something - in this case, the removing of God!
In this one sentence Hawking betrays all his prejudicial desire to remove God from his own life and the lives of others. It is no wonder he does not 'believe' in God, if he does not want Him around!
So, like so many others who reject Christ, the argument is being put into service after the conclusion has been chosen, and it is no wonder that the argument is as empty as your article has shown it to be.

Al M., United States, 23 July 2012
It certainly sounds more like fantasy than science. Basically, the idea is that "everything is a figment of your own imagination." And that is scientific, or based on reality HOW? It's so ridiculous, how is this an acceptable explanation for the universe? The lengths gone to deny the obvious...

Jesse M., United States, 23 July 2012
Hawking said “There was no time before the big bang … for God to exist in." Dude, God is not bound by time; He is self-existing and created time. What a ridiculous argument! This goes to show that intelligence does not equal wisdom.

john C., United States, 23 July 2012
As the universe exists now, matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. But if there was a time when there literally was nothing that existed then the rules that apply now would probably be very different and that matter and energy could possibly be created from nothing.

Russell Grigg responds:
But created by whom or what? Even if there was a different set of rules from which something arose, rules are not 'nothing'. Self-evidently, nothing can arise from nothing, in fact, provided nothing is given its proper meaning.

Anton D., Namibia, 23 July 2012
It is indeed sad that a person with mental acumen (to use your appropriate phrase) of such stature missed such obvious flaws in his thinking.
A very clear question that most people tend to miss (when trying to find a way "around God"), is that we try to interpret and explain our environment - and particularly the 'higher order" things - from our limited perspective and understanding.
How can a rock explain (to another rock) organic life in a tree from its limited (non-organic) personal experience/existence?
How can a clever rock explain biological organic life in an animal?
How can an very clever rock explain human life to another rock? etc...
Regardless of who we are - our limitations are real, and must be admitted. By this I do not AT ALL suggest that we stop our investigations - it was (part of) the first and most core of our commands from God (to rule - and we cannot do so without knowing).
It is - admittedly - VERY frustrating to have to admit that we simply do not (and often cannot - as a result of our limited ability) know some things (yet). The result is that we then end up concocting our own little theories to fill the gaps in our understanding (of which so many of the "-isms" are evidence). The worst part is when we start selling these (often esoteric) theories as "the truth".
I so often fall into the same trap, and must constantly remind myself that I'm the proverbial dog, tree or rock...

Jeff M., United Kingdom, 23 July 2012
Dear Russell
I wonder if I might ask a couple of questions?
1. God is eternal. If we, for example, take a very small chunk of that eternity - before He created the World - let's say a mere twenty thousand billion years - a twinkling of an eye to Him, isn't a period of 6,000 years (plus the next 300 years before the Rapture)not worth bothering with?
2. I refer to an earlier article of yours about Adam's sin. God knew billions of years before He created Adam that he would do so and that Adam would sin. He knew how and when Adam would sin. It was in effect pre-ordained, so how did poor Adam have a chance? If he hadn't taken the apple, God couldn't be omniscient?
Yours puzzledly (as usual)

Russell Grigg responds:
1. Your problem is in equating eternity with time. As hard as it is for us timebound mortals to understand, God exists outside the flow of time. So the idea that eternity is 'a long time' is meaningless, as is the notion that one can see any time 'x' as a small fraction of that time.
2. Being outside of time, God knows the end from the beginning. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. Most theologians, even those who hold that we currently don't have the freedom to choose not to sin (i.e. we are either slaves to sin or to Christ, thanks to our Adamic nature) agree that Adam and Eve preFall did indeed have free choice.

Miki T., Tanzania, United Republic of, 23 July 2012
Dr Kwame Nkrumah says in his Consciencism, 1964 that "neurotic insistence on the cause of the cause of.." must of necessity stop somewhere.

Related articles


  1. In July 2012 in Australia. Return to text.
  2. Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L, The Grand Design, Bantam Press, London, 2010. Return to text.
  3. Also in Journal of Creation 25(1):25–29, 2011. Return to text.
  4. Conducting experiments to observe effects is called operational science, whereas hypotheses about the unobserved and unobservable past involve historical or forensic science. Return to text.
  5. Nietzsche, F., Twilight of the Idols, Chapter 6, The Four Great Errors, section 8, trans. by R.J. Hollingdale. Return to text.
  6. An axiom is an assumption made without proof for the purpose of argument. Return to text.
  7. Ref. 2, p. 225. Return to text.
  8. Chapter 6 of The Grand Design book deals principally with Hubble’s concept of an expanding universe that was smaller in the past, Eddington’s concept of this as a bubble, Friedmann’s concept of inflation proceeding at greater than the speed of light, and the claimed uniform cosmic background radiation. Return to text.
  9. Ref. 2, p. 227. Return to text.


There is meaning to life, yes!   Trying to find meaning within the words of Hawking?   Not so much!  Much like Lewis Carroll.   Hawking may like chasing rabbits rather than dealing with evidence but you will be responsible for yourself...God or Hawking?

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
  He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
  He chortled in his joy.

 `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe. 

Conceivably there are many unschooled folks who take comfort in Hawking's tortured logic and philosophically and scientifically ludicrous core assumptions.   While Darwinists chortle over having slain a Jabberwock, there are real scientists trying to cure disease, make better versions of motors and components while applying the designs found in nature.  There are also scientists working on questions concerning the Flood and the Creation Week as well as classifying baramin more precisely and many other matters that one were called science before the Darwnists Mythologists took charge.   But you can think for yourself! Right?