W
W W W World Wide Web
Witness Inc. Home Page
Contents
Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER 1
News 233
Creation Research News Sheet,
received September 2002
See also His Time is Near 2003, Ch. 9, loc. cit., incl. *1
Light is Quite Speedy:
The Light of God has been there from the First
THE START OF IT
Ah!
You say, what nonsense is this. It was not till after darkness that God
commanded light. This of course is true; but that is not the ‘light’ one had in
view, as to the “first”. It is the light of understanding in view; and this is
being contrasted with the mere light to illuminate physical things, so much
less, since man uses this light to destroy and maim, quite routinely, and the
light which illumines such unillumined deeds, though paralleled with darkness
in his human mind, is not by any means the main one.
This
is so; nevertheless today the first issue is physical light. It has been lauded
as a sort of noble invariable, standing sublime amidst a deteriorating
universe, in terms so necessary that though many denied them, and appealed to
other data, this noble gesture was made.
However
facts have problems with theories that do not yield, and this dream about
light, as it increasingly appears to be, is being jabbed hard by data.
Before
however, the reader goes further, it will be necessary to read pp. 3-8 above, which set the tone, and are
not merely the preface for this work, but the preliminary to this chapter. This
done, we proceed.
THE THING DEVELOPS
An
interesting sheet from Creation Research of Queensland, draws attention to new
developments concerning the speed of light controversy. This has been treated
at some length on this site, but a convenient brief coverage is to be found in Barbs, Arrows and Balms Ch. 15, in which the author, an engineer by
name Malcolm Bowden, of a Technical Journal article in 1998 (Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp. 241-244) is treated in the broader context. The case for its decrease seemed
well and concisely put, and this was considered with much interest and
approval. It is useful to realise, that this area of fascinating considerations
in light, and its velocity, as noted in Ch. 15 cited above, relates to just one
of the models which brings the age of the earth to dimensions far smaller than
many, it seems, would like to think.
Now
we find that Dr Graham French of the University of Canberra, Australia, has
addressed not only the noted admission of Paul Davies (concerning some of whose
statements, see SMR pp. 422Aff., TMR Ch. 7) and his team of scientists,
but the issue of the speed of light more generally.
Concerning
the first point, media source provides this:
v “A team of Australian scientists, led by theoretical
physicist (and evolutionist) Paul Davies from
We
have of course earlier considered something of Dr Humphreys' position on this
complex of issues, and reported on this in such places as SMR pp. S 22ff., in Ch. 15, Barbs, Arrows and Balms, and TMR Ch. 7, Section E. The flux in
physics is now so intense that what it might do next, in the light of its
philosophical secular darkness, is an interesting question, without much light.
The Editor of the Creation Research paper points out that there was coverage given to
Barry Setterfield’s work when he was editor of Ex Nihilo, in 1982 (Vol.
1).
Dr
Graham French, head of Electronics at Canberra University, gives a review
following the Reuters article above (last month published), and it is
interesting to consider it. It is “interesting”, he says, that “a phenomenon
such as the decrease in the speed of light makes the popular press (CT
He
points out that “the hypothesis that C (the universally accepted symbol for the
speed of light) has decayed over time (Called CDK) has been elucidated for many
years. Up to recent times, however it has been (almost) universally rejected by
the scientific community because of the supposed consequences for the General
Theory of Relativity (Albert Einstein) and the implications of radiometric
dating methods” – these clinging tenuously to its tails. C bears heavily on age rating and dating, via its
integral relationship with radioactive decay rate.
Not only does C directly
affect age rating and dating.
Variation in it, of any
substantial magnitude, brings radiometric dating at once, all to sea, in fact
to oceanic disturbances in its results, like those from some tsunami on the
littoral buildings. It is like an accelerator or brake, on the assumed dates,
very directly.
Let us however revert to the basic fact of C as such, for the
moment ignoring its implications.
“In
fact,” he proceeds, “CDK has been written about for over half a century. In
1987 a Stanford Research Institute Report (written by Australian mathematicians
Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield) postulated a non-linear CD. In the same
year V.S. Trotskii, a Russian theoretical physicist, published a detailed
theory implying that the initial value of C had to be at least 10 billion times
its present value to explain observed astronomical phenomena.” This of course
makes the assured presumption of some of the dating assumptions even more
ludicrous than they now are (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch. 7, Section E).
Indeed
the concept of billions of times changes in this ‘constant’ was also raised as
noted in CREATION Technical Journal 15 (2) for 2001, in which the finding that C
could vary by billions of time in certain plasma situations, was noted, with
research summary by John Woodmorappe. This is added to the earlier noted
finding of variability by that lively thinker,
Professor Slusher of
The
comment from Graham French continues, however, like this:
“More
recently, in 1998, Albrecht and Magueijo, respected theoretical physicists from
Imperial College, London, published their proposal that light slow down CDK was
a solution to current cosmological puzzles. Their work was featured recently on
Equinox, a popular Science show on Channel 4 in Britain.”
The
message ends with this word: “I trust that this debate will widen as we seek to
come to grips with the question of the origin of the amazing Creation of which
we are all a part.”
Here
we find that not uncommon defenestration of the corrupt concept of the
white-coated saint scientist (St Science’s Church ?),
incorruptible and without prejudice. As we see on SMR pp. 205 ff., one very eminent scientist
has reason enough, and not so very long ago, to mourn the grave failure of this
to be the case. It is scientific method, not scientists, which is reliable.
This is not to say they are unreliable, any more than butchers, nurses or
accountants; but that a myth concerning their drives, motives and procedures,
is not good for acute thought, any more than a cynical substitute. What IS
needed is rational thought amid the findings of the differently directed human
beings who constitute this profession.
It
is, in terms of the naturalistic profusion of irrational thought (cf. A
Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3, Wake
Up World! … Ch. 5, Stepping out for Christ Chs. 2 and 7, Secular Myth and Sacred Truth Ch. 8, Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm… Chs. 1 and 7), that concern
is felt for a new phlogiston-type crusade corrupting progress, as in the days
of Lavoisier who taught science better: a tedious waste of time, just as
Professor Søren Løvtrup so roundly asserted
in his own field (cf. SMR pp. 252A-C,
203-204).
This
tendency to ignore reality, so diverse from the declared aims of science, is of
course no worse than in politics, where so many hair-brained substitutes for
thought lie littered on the tarmac, colouring it red; and is merely a function
of generic sin, intolerant of God, irrational when confronted with His works, intemperate
either in obstruction, when in power, or obfuscation when not. It is just that
when an idol, whether in football in science, is erected, man has another
difficulty. The removal of idols is cognate to, but far worse than, the removal
of a dummy from the pouting mouth of a particularly truculent baby. It offends
the mind set, the emotional disposition, to DESIRE of the heart. It is TO BE
RESISTED.
THE FOOLISHNESS OF IT
Consider
then what has been happening.
1 .
Ø First, the simple, empirical evidence on dates has been ignored (cf. TMR
Ch. 7, Section E), questions of
time indicated for helium accumulation, limits for its persistence in rocks,
for earth’s population, projected rates for earth leveling by erosive forces -
and there are colossal mountains, magnetic field decay indications and
successful creationist predictions, earth cooling indications, moon crater
considerations in terms of rock viscosity (cf. Slusher, The Age of the Earth), sediment deposition indications, galaxy
spiral spread plus massive walls in space contrary to Big Bang homogeneity
expectations, together with spatial structuring and supernova predictions for
‘young’ and ‘old’ earth – relative to the data, reasonable inferences
concerning age derived from river inputs of chemicals to the oceans
(beautifully exposed in classified list by Dr John Morris in his work, “the scientific case for Creation” pp. 55ff. ), ‘recent’ and ‘ancient’ stars
with similar chemical composition, volcanic indications in a moon of Jupiter
and the specialized specificities that continue remorselessly in space: in all
these things, as shown at the above site and in SMR Ch. 2, it has long been
apparent that the answer lies in one simple, identical direction.
Ø Add the haemoglobin ‘keeping’ for millions of years,
past and contrary to all testing work by orders of magnitude, yet the blood is
found*1;
the synthesis of orderly astronomical indications on the one hand and the comet
and spiral phenomena in galaxies on the other, all in simple test mode,
negative to long ages, and many such
things such as tree trunks minus roots, spreading through ‘millions of years’
worth of rock, or the simplicity of the Mt St Helen’s provision of vast ages
(by geological presumption) in observable days.
Ø There is only one empirical answer, covering all
without distortion, deformity of guile, and straightforward observation of the joint
flow of empirical testimony. A young earth is the only one which does not make
a comedy of ‘errors’ of the facts.
2 .
What
has been used to colour the condition of things ? Radiometric dating. On what does it depend ? ON
multiplied assumptions, never removed (above reference), so that provided you
know how old things are, you can find how old they are (the science of guessing
cf. SMR pp. 240ff., and TMR Ch. 7, End-note 4).
Its
measure of practical reliability, even with isochron dating which makes its own
assumptions, has been ridiculed so
often, as shown in the above references, its collision with other dating methods,
and this including diverse radiometric methods themselves, its selective
preference for such dates as are expected and discard of the disagreeable, its
irrational implications in diverse geological situations, when applied in
practice, all these outcomes and incomes being contrary to all of scientific
method: these things merely are the excuses for inadequate knowledge,
inadequate formulation and inadequate information. This bundle of assumptions
about how the world developed in order to find data to show how the world
developed has been so extreme a delusion as to show, theologically, the extreme
aptitude of Ephesians 4:17ff., where the alienation of the heart of man from
God breeds ignorance.
3 .
Empirically,
then, the case for the long age of earth has been ridiculous. In terms of known
and categorically fundamental scientific law, the requisitioning of time for
advance has been merely a flat contradiction of the actual and observable use of time for retardation,
decay, de-specification and the like
(cf. Stepping
out for Christ Ch. 2, TMR Ch.
1, Wake Up World Chs. 4-6, Spiritual
Refreshings Ch. 13). Not only is this
anti-observational theorising, but it is contrary to logic in its normal
parameters of thought (Repent or Perish
Ch. 7).
4 .
Not
only so, the assumed beneficiaries of all the time so painstaking provided by
such anti-scientific devices (relative to scientific method cf. SMR pp. 140ff;, and TMR Ch. 1)
are not in the least co-operative as Dr W. R. Thompson, when Director of the
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Research, pointed out (cf. SMR pp. 199ff., 312), when he referred to “fragile
towers of hypotheses on hypotheses, where fact and confusion intermingle in
inextricable confusion”. The lack of major transitional evidence for creature
kinds of the biblical scope (Genesis 1) is fundamental, irrevocable, systematic
and increasingly acknowledged as this or that myth is invoked, without any
science, to account for the recalcitrant facts, the confrontational data (cf.
SMR pp. 106, 236, Wake Up World … Ch. 6).
Parallel
performance for the dating fiasco merely adds
fiasco number two. How prone is the heart of man to the devices of his
imagination! How cardinally so is this when the name and work of the Creator is
in view, yes and for that matter, of the Saviour from precisely such plagues
both in science and in philosophy, the latter the vying source for the former.
Prone to such foozling and folly, man NEEDS the salvation as much as the
realization, the one ministering to address the pathology of the other, providing the light which banishes darkness,
and arrests the subversive if unconscious desire for it.
5 .
What
then ? The TIME was not needed; the TIME was not in any case relevant to code
construction to impel orders to cohesive designs (Repent or Perish Ch. 7); and the TIME was created in an
anti-scientific method by hyper-hypothetical constructions in opposition to
known empirical evidence and law. But
the case is worse! This led to simple nonsense situations with the actual
biological evidence as well, at least somewhat faced by the outrageously
non-conformist Gould, who almost escaped some of the irrationalities when
speaking with such candour as is brought back to our attention, below (from Wake
Up World! … Ch. 6).
What is never found
is a new design, a genuine novelty, a new architectural facility. That is why
Goldschmidt remonstrates: "The facts of great
general importance are these: - When a new phylum, class or order appears,
there follows a quick, explosive... diversification so that practically all
orders of families known appear suddenly and without any apparent
transitions" - as cited in That Magnificent Rock on p.
38.
Gould is scarcely less literate on the topic of fact in this regard: "How could such a view of life as a single progressive
chain, based on replacement by conquest and extending smoothly from the
succession of organic designs through the sequence of human technologies,
possibly accommodate anything like our modern interpretations of the
Burgess fauna ? ... The modern themes of maximal disparity and decimation by
lottery are more than just unacceptable under such a view of life: they are
literally incomprehensible. They could never even arise for
consideration..." (Wonderful Life, p. 260).
This is literally true. It could not arise for consideration, except for a
pseudo-papal decree, or decretal, or pronunciamento, this time from
biological 'believers' that so it MUST BE.
Arise for
consideration! It is even enforced with withering rigour by
the anti-cognoscenti, whose predicted belief in
a lie (II Thess. 2:10-11, II Peter 3) is equal to the defrauding of scientific
method occasioned in their arrant dogmatism. It is precisely like the papacy of
old telling Galileo that the earth does not rotate around the sun: for SO
it MUST be, says their heretical authority.
And yet it
does, muses Galileo! because of the fact, not mangled
by false churches (SMR pp. ff.). So here: "the life does NOT come by the
superabundant power of creative enactment without evidence of 'trying'. Life
MOVES." This is what the
'church' of Philosophical Biology decrees. You MUST affirm that it does not.
Yes, it does not come that way, say
many Galileos of this century, in feigned acquiescence in the face of
money and power and prestige, ranting at them; and then mumble under their
breaths, following their evidences of arrivals: and yet
it does. It is required to disbelieve
it in circumstances all but innumerable as often documented in this site, or
else to act as if one did. Gould as we see above, despite being better in
acknowledging facts than many, does just the same. His credo leaps from the
mind, but finds no place in the book of life, for reference. It is just a
dichotomy, with emphasis on the "die", as far as correct procedure in
thought is concerned.
Again, we read from
him in his candour,
"Instead of a narrow beginning and a constantly expanding upward range, multi-cellular life reaches its maximal scope at the start, while later decimation leaves only a few surviving designs" - p. 233 op.cit...
Indeed, we find this: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" -
S.
J., Gould in his work, "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 119-130 (1980), cf. SMR p. , 315Aff..
6 .
The
affair grows as it has grown, worse, like final mode of terminal cancer.
Ø In addition to these methodological villainies (in
breach terms, that is, not in intention),
Ø they are imagined for the SORT of situation which even
on varied Big Bang monstrosities is wildly contrary to the extremes required at
the outset. The yellowing, if you will, of the printed page is taken as a rate
index to the speed of its manufacture! Constitution as a measure of institution
however, by whatever originative means, for what manifestly decays, is not a
leap of faith, but a field for fiasco.
Ø These monstrosities, moreover, are contrary in themselves to so much increasingly
available measured data, that simply does not fit, that the Big Bang theme is
becoming far less popular, being just one more assemblage of anomaly: the
empirical evidence conflicting with the requirement of hypothesis in the
precisely anti-scientific method manner, to which one becomes so accustomed in
this sort of field (cf. TMR Ch. 7, End-note 2), a piper’s drone as of death, wild theory
tangled with the tedium of endless empirical contradiction. This, it is in
turn, precisely that funereal drone,
normal for finishing scientific theories, though as with dictators in the
flesh, there may be those who wish to keep them ostensibly alive, though death
is their actual lot.
THE TRUTH IS NOT ON
VACATION
Thus,
highly diverse situations, even on the Big Bang anomaly, would have to be
expected in the FORMATION stage, relative to the CONTINUATION stage. It is thus
that the immensely presumptuous thoughts arose. Assume that what happens in a
universe under maintenance (as it observably is in all departments available),
not in creation, is the same as in creation, and what do you have ? It is, as
noted in SMR pp. 75ff., a horrible
ignoring of the case in point! It is analogous to saying that the way an embryo
is made bears strikingly close time and decay resemblance to the way a
teen-ager is maturing. The case is grotesquely and inimitably a contortion and
abortion combined.
This
was noted in TMR Ch. 7; but it is worse even than that. The very sort of case
where it is found that there could be huge divergences from the C speed, IS in
situation just of this category, an intense and dramatic kind, the researches
being with plasma*2.
It is what you would expect in principle, but to find it so designated in
practice and research for such a style of event, this is – if possible - even
worse. Such heat as is in the sun, for example, and the matter states that may
currently be there, are perhaps almost a minimal thing, when compared with the
brilliance of its institution! Even in what may be comparable to that, however,
we learn, we are in the field for billion-fold alteration in C.
The
empirical is dumped to the point that we might as well write a novel. Then the
novel is found to be a wild one. What would you expect when engendering is
confused with continuance, except an intellectual maelstrom! Now the storm is
passing over the land of academia, and it may well blush; but when it comes to
storms, blushing may be legitimate, yet it is not all! The havoc wrought in
this incendiary alienation from scientific method in the first place, is now
finding the truth of the biblical proverb: Sow the
wind and reap the whirl-wind!
¨
What remains is time,
that harassed fugitive from justice,
hiding in endless flimsy constructions,
behind tedious anomalies,
behind pompous words and absurd pretensions,
never sated, never used,
merely waved about like a trident,
as if the British navy had a Britannia plus trident effigy,
but neglected its men and weapons.
One
must however return to earth. It is high
time. The flirtation with the preposterous must end. It has absorbed too much
and too many. Incidentally, they soon will move, if not to heaven, then at
least to earth, when the Truth Himself returns. It is no coincidence that He is
in heaven awaiting the time to rule (Acts 1:7ff., 3:19ff., Hebrews 9:28, 7:25,
II Thessalonians 1, Zechariah 14:5, Matthew 24).
The
precise antithetical romancing which has occurred is part of the scope of His
arrangements, indeed predicted plan (cf. II Peter 3:3-5, Matthew 24:24,10-12, Joyful
Jottings Ch. 8, Answers to Questions Ch. 5), not forcing, but directing the flow and taking
His own steps as He will; for in such things as these both His power, which
provided the Exodus for the Jew in the great exhibition of divine versus
secular power, and His wisdom which provided for man, the Christ, are made
manifest; and through both, His love in patience (II Peter 3:9), for there is
no exclusion in the grandeur of the grace of His heart (John 3:16), though it
comes in profusion when truth rejected, mercy is banished as if garbage (John
3:19,36).
As
to the physical light, what do we then find ? It is this. The facts are of one
kind where known, and of no kind where unknown, except that what is known is
that in the interstices of creation, huge increases of speed of C, and decreases
of time, are in view, matching to perfection the anomalous situations of
current disparities between theoretical dating and empirically based dating,
extended-hypothesis upon hypothesis, where ideas call the shots, and the shots
tend to be ignored where this is not done.
The date with dating has really expired; the present date is with the LORD, and
it is unwise to ignore the fact that just as physical light has enormous
velocity, so the reception of spiritual light from the hand which is source for
man of both, should not be slow (II Corinthians 6:1ff.).
For more on
this topic and related themes, see:
TMR Ch. 7, Section E, Divine Agenda Ch. 1,
and The
Defining Drama Ch. 3.
See also
His Time is Near Ch. 9,
and Spiritual
Refreshings Ch. 13.
NOTES
*1 From TMR Ch. 7, Section E, *2, we
have the following to the point:
Indeed,
these data give ample thrust to the conception of an earth young enough to
allow for FOSSIL
DNA (Creation,
March-May, 1993, p. 9). There cited in New Scientist, Oct. 17,
1992, is a Nature article's reference to DNA magnolia tree fragments,
"allegedly some 18 million years old", in the context of Nature's
article to the effect that "the rate at which DNA breaks down
spontaneously means that after 10,000 years there should be none
left." Even excluding moisture and bacteria, says New
Scientist, this means that "total breakdown should occur by 10,000
years at most."
Amber
is a good keeper for this, and New Scientist reports that two separate
teams of US researchers have "extracted DNA sequences from a termite and a
stingless bee, both in ... amber, of evolutionary age 30 million years."
Similarly, New Scientist reports that dinosaur bones of e.g. 75 million
years, have "yielded the protein osteocalcin". As proteins have long
chains which naturally disjoin, this discovery confirms the others just noted.
Such things as these are no longer in defiance of bio-chemistry, when the
evidence is all taken as it requires, in terms of laws and logic, to its
conclusion. A young earth is the empirical indication, and satisfies what
nothing else does in many dimensions.
Again
in Dec.- Feb. 1996 (p.9) , Creation magazine again quotes from New
Scientist (May 27, 1995) re "many recent claims of extracting
DNA - tiny, unbroken strands of complex molecule that carries the various
instructions for living things - from amber insects." This is an
exciting new discovery, it notes, for creationists. It adds that
"evidence that DNA should not be there after only 10,000 years is "
so persuasive" that some try to discount the evidence itself. Now, it
relates,
v
"the chairman of the microbiology department at California
Polytechnic State University, and an assistant, have claimed in Science magazine
they have cultured live bacteria from the gut of a bee in Dominican amber.
According to evolutionary assumptions, the fossil is 25-40 million years
old." General agreement, despite wonderment and concern, is that the claim
is 'most compelling'. The researchers also claim that have revived 1500
different types of ancient micro-organism.
Yet
such matters do not stop: for how could you hold back a dam by a theory ? Thus
in a 2000-2001 report, there is claim to have isolated and revived
salt-resistant bacteria from a salt intrusion dated 250 million years old
appeared (reported in Nature 407:897-900, 2000). Great
pains, it is indicated, were taken to prevent contamination.
The
report of Micahel J. Oard, Dec. 26, 2001, notes this: “The researchers admit
that they do not know how the bacteria could survive 250 million years … It
truly is astonishing that bacteria, DNA, red blood cells, bone proteins, etc.
could really survive the vicissitudes of tectonics, heating events, water
seeping through the rocks, and other geological processes for millions of years
and remain ‘alive.’ Before this barrage of discoveries, scientists considered
that such survival was impossible past several thousands or tens of thousands
of years.” So does the fairy wand of will wave over the land of make-believe,
the unwarranted assured, the negated affirmed, as in the vastly endowed
Cambrian fields explored by Gould, verifications denied (cf. Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm … Chs. 1 and 7, SMR pp. 140ff., Spiritual Refreshings Ch.
13, at “Conspectus”), laws broken
(TMR Ch. 1), and the dam of fact bursts
continually over the sorry scene. But let us revert to this particular bacteria
case.
This
also explains how 'small pieces of coalified bark' could be detached from a
coal seam component (Creation, Sept-Nov.1998), assigned an age of 250
million years, and then given a laboratory age of about 34000 years. As Dr
Snelling points out, if the wood were really 250 million years old, there would
not even be expected the C14 or radioactive carbon, on which to make
the assessment! So do the very stones cry out, the very seams and their very
contents, as well as the dates! All radio-carbon, he notes, should have
decayed "in a fraction of that alleged time."
Dr Robert Gentry’s work
on coal (Creation's Tiny Mystery, pp. 54ff.) similarly shows
carefully reasoned grounds for the supposition that the Colorado Plateau coal
seams were in fact formed in a small number of years. His double halo empirical
work is outstanding, and the implications considered with care, leading to this
result.
The
principles and the practice in this area all point to a young earth age, in
concert. This explains the evidence; the option of scientific guesswork,
assuming determinable rates of radioactive decay despite the ignorance, and the
variability as noted above, and assuming original situations from which
decay is to occur, was never valid and does not cover the empirical case. This
is again true of the helium situation for earth.
The following from Deliver Us
from Disorientation Ch. 6, may also prove useful at this point, for summary
purposes:
The date game is up. The ludicrous insistences on assumptions, now better seen as guesses as Professor Andrews emphasised in his excellent piece of learned iconoclasm of science falsely so-called, God, Science and Evolution, Ch. 6, is contradicted on all sides.
It
is spurned in terms varying from
but this is not a dating
excursion*1, merely a date with reality. Let
us proceed.
*2 FROM TMR (loc. cit. *4), we find this
point in considering the affirmation of vast increase in C in certain plasma
type situations. As noted there from the report, re this change:
“The latter may occur in the plasma state,
which is thought to be that such as abides in the sun, at extremely high
temperature. In that matter-dispersive state, in which normal coherence is
changed, electrons and atomic nuclei are deemed to exist, with a measure of
dismantling from the norm.”
Let us revise our thought on the point from TMR:
“This nine order of magnitude increase in
radioactive decay, then, evidently occurs when a neutron changing into a
proton, has eventual products including an expelled derivative electron,
exiting as a negative beta particle,
b. The process, difficult to stage as an escape in normal circumstances,
appears greatly assisted if the nucleus first loses surrounding electrons,
these vacating or not locating in their orbits, this situation
facilitating exit for particles to be expelled with nucleus change.
“The latter may occur in the plasma state,
which is thought to be that such as abides in the sun, at extremely high
temperature. In that matter-dispersive state, in which normal coherence is
changed, electrons and atomic nuclei are deemed to exist, with a measure of
dismantling from the norm.
“This type of accelerated b emission scenario has
been found, the report indicates, in the rhenium-osmium system, with the
billion-fold acceleration of decay rate, thus reducing an anticipated 42
billions of years to some 33 years, in terms of half-life. This type of
accelerated response has also been found in other (cited) cases.
“This
is a true-to-type exemplification of merely the sort of thing expected in
·
a) the creation process
itself, when parts may have been
co-ordinated from unco-ordinated bases.
·
b) the day when initiating
processes themselves may have been
forged which, in the incremental moulding and forming processes of creation,
were far removed from the mature and relatively dignified events of the
completed forms, delimited to their desires parameters akin to the purpose,
information being fed from formulation.
·
c) the mini-processes which may have been contributory to maxi-ones, such
as, purely as admonition, in the opposite direction, fragmentation
particles, of small time endurance, indicate in the break-down scale. This is
illuminating in that the make-up moments are an ample repository for what is
diverse and even divergent by NATURE, just as, to take a gross example, molten
metal has very different characteristics in terms of accomplishing change of
form, from those of solid metal in which the product may be housed, and
far more generally, any unintegrated part of a system is at that primary stage,
not regulated by the mechanisms, restraints, constraints and paradigms of the
design, which limit, direct and by formulation, as in the DNA for man, exclude
and include for what is the limit desired.
·
d) the fluctuations expository of the conceptual
criteria for creation, which no more are bound to appear in the
characteristics of the completed work, than are the forms of thought in the
fashioned phrases later, and duly built to accommodate them.
·
e) the sheer speed of institution, which as in
matters of thought to our experience on a daily basis, leaves the expression
and the formulation, very frequently, a major work to perform in parallel. Thus
there is the sheer idea, or understanding, there is the forming of this into
words, and then there is the forming of the words into the syntactical
sophistication of communication devices. Movements of expressive media in
creation vary enormously in the most general sense, and on the most expansive
scale of experience, from their relative stability when the work is done, and
the paper and the print exist stably by one's side.
”It is sheer negligence to disregard what we know of
creation in the amazing record of many writers and scientists, in the various
forms of its appearance in the mind, spirit and hand of man, in considering the
creation of our universe.”
In
fact, often children used to be said to be “creating” when misbehaving
obstreperously, but here the danger is the precise opposite: to be misbehaving
(with regard to scientific method) in not facing creation! This only has no
contradictions with the empirical, the legal and the harmony of evidence, with
regard to time. It needs NOTHING, and can freely get what it is shown to have
taken, to the extent such events are shadowed by the present; and the time stretching
back to the start of the processes we know from observation, is neither
anomalous nor difficult, when all the direct measurements are considered, and
the fantasies of some of the most massively arrogant, or at least disingenuous
assumptions of all time, are removed from a controlling place in the cockpit of
thought, and placed out the window, to be blown with the other winds.
The
calibration of the myth of time in its sheer prodigies of immensity, doing what
it has no power to do, the intensity of precision mingling callowly with the
profundity of the ignorance of the processes involved, is indeed ludicrous.
Worse than the anomaly of method (like putting 2.345 when the number could as
well be 234.5), the thing in principle in this theoretical confine, is contrary
to what time does have power to do!
It
is for this reason that this is no more worthy of the serious thought of man,
than the calibration of any other myth, founded on confusion, propounded in
profusion, heeded by the unwary, the caught and the needy, reverenced by the
faithful, its ceremonies sustained by precisely what the Bible has said in
advance in II Peter 3, a trend to mock God; and if some do not so intend it,
disease is often infection, and many can be caught by cultural traps, and so
inured, that thought becomes an unlikely event, except in the confines of the
prison imposed. It is for this reason, not least, that the power of God in
liberating people from so many of the past cultural traps, and impelling so
many of the first rate scientific innovators to truth, is so clearly shown.
It
takes a lot to do that; a lot is given. It works. Nothing with God, is
impossible. What IS impossible, is the nothingness of making time do the job
that does not so much need time, as creative facility, power and mental
craftsmanship of a kind not found in man. Given TIME, the universe decays; and
so does man.
What
is needed, is not more time, but more truth, that does not decay; and He whose
it is, is needed, for there is no other option, no other name, no other work,
no other testimony which rules as it has ruled, neither any scientific
philosophy or other ‘wisdom’; and truth never relieves itself in its duty, nor
restricts itself from what is written. Divorce there is one of the great
non-events of history, though many have they been, who have sought such a
result!
When
Jesus Christ said this: I am the way, the truth and
the life, He was simply stating a fact. It is one on which much hangs;
but it is of the order of fact. To contest in the time of day, with Him,
evidentially, logically, historically, empirically, prophetically,
methodologically, scientifically, morally, in effectuality, in wisdom, in
demonstrability, in verification, there is, in this case, literally and
accurately, NOTHING! His word stays; other words fail in contest, and fall in
their day.
His ? It is so tomorrow when He comes to rule; it is His today as He gives
life to the lost, newly redeemed, the price being sufficient for all, and paid
for His; it was His, yesterday when He rose, has been always, from the
creation, not as with men, of a book, but of the DNA of life, written with
brilliant pen, and the drama of matter, inscribed with form and energy
according to law, principle and procedure after which man still limps.
Not
in proud surmisings, but in humble worship must man come, and only then will
understanding come, without which no theories will ever rule, will ever stand,
which huddle like children in the light, blocking the reading. Truth discarded
is knowledge retarded; and while man spends billions on seeking for companions
to “arise” in space, he lamentably fails the billions who languish on an earth
sundered by war, greed, corruption, indifference, wild extremes, irrationality
and desire. It was to be and it is (Matthew 24:11, Revelation 6). The scene,
the setting and the scenario was to be,
and it is so.
Time
ALWAYS DOES THAT. It is a prime chronological function: it gives itself for the
word of God to operate. There is always time for that; and for that, time is always
effective. It is better left where it empirically belongs, where it really does
work, and is verified in its task!