IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ...

BIBLICAL WORKMAN
Chapter 7
"IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ... "

Looking at the Source

In our Chapter 4, we looked at Romans 1, in which the power and nature of the Creator were presented by Paul,
and that with Enormous Consequences.
Now we shall consider this reality in the context of our contemporary life, a little more, and collate a part of
That Magnificent Rock (TMR) for convenience,
so that these two streams of meditation may be combined.

Genesis 1:1 tells us of the beginning, so that in 2:4 we are advised that the whole generation of heavens and earth has just been over-viewed. THIS is how it occurred.

"In the beginning, God created..." The two grammatical units, the phrase, 'in the beginning', and the declaration, God 'created', have a devised echo. Such is the condensation of Hebrew, that the phrase is one word, with (in English transliteration) a BR start; and "created" which is followed by the term for God, begins with the same two letters. It strikes like a trumpet: BR BR.

Right throughout Genesis 1, the trumpet continues its staccato note, like the word of command from divinity, over all force and law; and the results accord with statuesque composure, arriving as commanded, and doing what is required. (Cf. TMR, Ch.7, pp. 178ff..)

In John 1, there is the same sense of magnificent power and composure; but it is not in creation that we see the issuance, but in the consideration of the world as created in Genesis 1, and developed by the mind of man into amazing disorder. That is the real, the historical development process, and it is nothing to be in the least proud of...

John continues to exhibit the mighty craftsmanship of the Word of God, who makes life, being Life and having it in Himself. The darkness in which the light shined is at once brought on like the surging slap of mighty breakers, on the side of a large liner, at night.

John proceeds to tell us of the escort for the Word, when He came, John the Baptist, and then to note that this man pointed to the "true light which gives light to every man coming into the world". Though Maker of the world, though coming to the race chosen to glorify Him and surrounded with mercies, yet He was not received by them; yet by anyone who does receive Him, this Life gives the power to become a child of God. Expert in creation, He also is personal in proffering salvation from darkness into light.

Thus Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 likewise,
tell us of the beginning.

In the beginning, says John, the word was God (the Bible knows only one God, the Creator - Isaiah 45:18,Ephesians 4:4*1, John 8:58, 5:19-23) , and was with God, the word through whom the Father spoke the universe, construed, constructed and invented it (Colossians 1:16-17). The Word of God is the first-born of all creation, we here read, BECAUSE He created it, taking the pre-eminence not through being here first, but by putting it here, and then investing it with Himself, when He called on us to relieve us from the ruin of sin. Thus Paul announces of Him in Colossians 1:16, that He is "the first-born over all creation, BECAUSE by Him all things were created." (Cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 27.)

As to that creation, He is the creator of -

"all things ... visible and invisible" ... "All things were created through Him and by Him".
All things are called into being from nothing, we are told - that is the force of the term used for "creation" here; FROM nothing, but not BY nothing, for it is by GOD, whose difference from nothing is nothing less than infinity. Hebrews 11:1 advises us similarly, that:

"the things which are seen were not made of things that are visible", but instead were
"framed by the word of God".

What would you expect ... that they were framed by something that could not frame, or that frames built frames, and order proceeded from that which is not, in that building ex-builder, logic ex-reason extravaganza that masks truth and builds the lie as if it loved it better than a brother; and of that antagonist of the truth, the Satan, did not Christ call him justly, the father of lies ? (John 8:42-44). And what more does Christ say ?

Christ too refers to the beginning in precise terms, in relation to the differentiation of man and woman (Matthew 19:4) -
"He who made them in the beginning..."

GOD the creator is not limited by systems in that system is His creation, and whatever He has, is not dowered, but eternal, not a constraint, for there was none to constrain it, but an eternal election, eternally His will (cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock - SMR - pp. 25ff.,ROP 2).

Many systems however has He created (cf. ROP 7,
Excursion 1).

Here then we are going to concentrate less on the fact that God created, already repeatedly established*2, than on the implications of that fact, and on the implications of contrary imaginations. To this we shall ally certain considerations relating to the past in general in order to assess what is ludicrous, what is presumptuous and what is merely pathetic science, improperly so-called; and what on the other hand, is systematically realistic or procedurally sound. In our Excursion at the end, we shall look more broadly at the whole concept of dating.

What then is the mode of God's creation ?

We can see some of the MINIMAL INGREDIENTS so that it could be produced (cf. SMR Chs.1,3,10, That Magnificent Rock, Chs. 1, 8A Spiritual Potpourri Chs.1-9),
and we can read in His book, what He did (Repent or Perish, Ch.7, Excursion 1, Part II). As shown in our last reference, we can compare the many books which relate to His creating and saving activity. In His word, He gives clear attestation of His sole action in the entire gamut of creation, in a style most incisive, explicit and arresting. Thus in Isaiah 45:18-19, we find this:

"For thus says the Lord,

Who created the heavens
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited,

'I am the Lord, and there is no other.

I have not spoken in secret in the dark places of the earth:
I did not say to the seed of Jacob,

'Seek Me in vain';
I, the Lord, speak righteousness,
I declare things that are right."

Again, He declares:

"I am the Lord, who makes all things,

Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself,
Who frustrates the sings of babblers,
And drives diviners made,
Who turns wise men backward,
And makes their knowledge foolishness;
Who confirms the word of His servant,
And performs the counsel of His messengers..." (excerpted from Isaiah 44:24-26),

and this,

"I have made the earth,

And created man on it,
I - My hands - stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded" - Isaiah 45:12.

His intense monergism, being alone the operator, activator, institutor, creator, controller, commander, enunciator of those commands which are reflected in formulations of physical law and biological code and logical symbolism in world after world of intricate modelling and speech (cf. Repent or Perish 7, Excursion 1, and SMR Ch.2) is explicit. It is moreover thrust into our minds with just the force with which we now discover them thrust into the world about us, where our own liberties are a summit creation of peculiar magnificence, enabling us to junk the truth, discard the testimony of truth, and consign ourselves to the genuine opiate of obscurantist oblivion. It is a splendid thing, this liberty, but more so than such a result as may thus be achieved.

That He has created, we have shown from His word and from the evidence many times. We are however exceedingly limited in knowing, beyond the appearance of the requisitioned product, just HOW He created, the precise ingredients of divine dynamic which constituted the result, where unstated. If we do not understand in full how one of our own creates, calling thought, music into being, if we are ignorant in KNOWING HOW and by what MEANS an author of our own stature creates (he may not even be quite sure himself!), by how much more when the question is this: how the Lord created. If it is hard to know to know the creative HOW in our own, it is incomparably harder to KNOW of God, HOW He created. In each case, however, it is easy to see the result, the irruptive power, the precise ordering, the irresistible invasion of invention by Him who "does whatever He pleases" (Psalm 115:3), to recognise what creation is, as distinct from mere labour and endeavour.

That is to say, creation itself is distinct from moulding, it has especially in the Hebrew, a sense of the direct, of the case where means are not to the point. It is the act, the invocation, the impact of what is created that is looked to. The thing created HAS to happen, is superseded as to obstruction in this, that the creative power to be so called, makes what it has in mind, and it is DONE. This is enhanced to infinity when the creator is explicitly the one to whom such power intimately and uniquely belongs, God Himself. So we find in the tenor of Genesis 1. Things, for example, bear young, or other items after their KIND. This is not an effort; it is a result. THAT is what the creation achieves, licensing reality so to be, and being so, to do so.

So too in Colossians 1, the term in Greek specifies a creation by Christ which transcends lesser modes of operation. It calls into being from what is not there, what then is so and on call.

" ... all things were created through Him and for Him" - Col. 1:16

Just as this epistle specifies also, and emphatically, our spiritual genesis, its surrounds, circumstances and controlling dynamic, being fortified by Romans and Galatians in this task, so does Genesis make it clear that there is something else to be detailed, explained, accounted for, recounted and realised. It is, after all ... genesis.

Thus, after its profound declaration, it shows HOW IT ALL CAME TO BE, and then, HOW TIME CAME TO BE, and then, HOW DIVERSITY OF CREATURES came to be, and then HOW MAN CAME TO BE, then HOW SIN arrived on the scene, HOW FAMILIES, then the lead in to the contemporary situation. The first four of these six are already explicit by the end of Genesis 1. The trumpets have blown for Genesis, just as the trump will sound for the coming of the Lord for His people. After Genesis 1, what then ?

The Genesis 2:4 statement makes it clear that this is the universe's genealogy,

different from all others in this,
that it had to come from the hand of God direct,
since beginnings are like that.

We are not being told how process processed itself into existence, but how God invented the world, the cosmos, the light, the phenomenon of day and night, the phenomenon of night lights, continuity of species, significance of man in relation to Himself ... in a web of increasing complexity, through sin, from a spinning of grand scope and directness, from God. So far from there being even a smidgeon of doubt about what in the world the "days" are, there is an account of how the thing called 'day' came to be, complete with notation of its nomenclature being originated with it - Genesis 1:5. "Before the day was, I am He" - sums it up (Isaiah 43:13, cf. 45:12,18).

The FORM of God and the
INTERNAL MODE OF CREATION
Predicability is not Predictability

Yet, the internal mode of creation, the deity's disposition of powers and alignment of forces, beyond what we are told, is systematically beyond our appreciation. The FORM of God, which Christ had before the incarnation (Philippians 2:1-10) is infinitely above our own. As to imagining we can picture how the modalities of His creation were in reality invoked, beyond the fact that there can be no resistance, and all aims will assuredly be carried out without adjustment or compromise: we do not and cannot know except He should tell us. It is creation, a calling into being with infinite power, so that the words and the executions do not vary the one from the other; process does not distort, but implements, and implementation does not confuse, but is executive. Creation has its own dynamic, and from the infinite, its own purity, which even our own can in meagre but striking measure, mirror.

It is not the fact of creation, then that is here our concern, but the way in which time and matter are instructed to exist in the appointed domains, from the mind of God to their subsistence in the new and created reality, that we do not know. Both the book of God and that of history shows one thing: formation without upgrading, and diversification within gradings (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch.1). As to estimates of initial properties however, beyond the declared items, proportions of this or that, modes of instituting space and the like, not being in His book, and being utterly beyond our imagination, except in idle speculation, and that blighted by collision with the infinitude of His powers: such imaginations if presented as ascertained, are scarcely worthy of more than guffaw. It is a mouse describing the construction of a cheese factory by intuition.

This point is sharply to be distinguished from the PROPERTIES OF WHAT He created; just as the processes of creation, including those of our time dimension itself, are sharply to be discerned apart from the quite other question of the kind of power chosen for the creation from His unlimited arsenal of devices (cf. Proverbs 8:12, and Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 27)...

These facts have important consequences for those who ponder either predestination (Predestination and Freewill, and That Magnificent Rock -TMR, Chapter 7, Section 4), or dating (SMR -see Index, and Excursion at the end of this Chapter). Both have been considered at length before, but amplification on some points may prove beneficial.

An author is not restricted to the time-frame of the book he invents, does not await release from the prison he imagines, depicts, construes, however vividly and graphically he may with the flourish of a Dickens, make it appear. He has a liberty from the restrictions of the plane of life he creates, and can order, organise and institute it in any way found desirable, without the least regard to what "went before" or might "come afterwards", for the very good reason that this is bound only by the scope and power of his imagination, and is dependent, to the point in view, on his own devices.

An author may indeed deliberately distance the "world" he creates from the world in which he lives, or strongly relate it; but either way, the constraints if any, on his own world, are only by imagination imported into what he creates. To assume some control of the one over the other, some continuum, is merely to be erratically, bizarrely ignorant.

This, then, has important results - this simple reality concerning the very nature of creation with which we are daily familiar - when assumptions are being made or considered, which relate to the WAY a creation occurred. Depending on that way, this or that may result; but what was the way! How from the results can you work back to what is not known, and quantify what is unreachable, even in quality! The drama and dynamics of creation are sui generis! To surmise is one thing; it can promote humility by the very scope of the wonder of it all; but to asseverate, to inculcate in such an area, that is another!

Some authors may thrust the creation over the weir walls of their minds, like a torrent in flood, some let it fall quietly as if measured, while others again, seem possessed by an earthquake which even reduces any restraining considerations in the mode of creation to rubble! It is a spiritual phenomenon of striking magnitude.

Whichever the way, the result, the nature of the thing created, does not have any rectilinear, any predictable relationship to the formative means by which it was created, beyond this, that the latter must be sufficient for it. Much more, however, the WAY the thing created acts, once created, is quite diverse in KIND from the way in which it is instituted. There are quite divergent forces at work, utterly over-ruling dimensions from the source of the creation, compared with the way in which the page of the book, now written, yellows, or the ink blurs over the decades. It is EVEN very different, the way the yellowing ageing components occurs, from the way the paper is created ... THESE processes and THOSE of creation itself at its own ultimate level, and in its various orders and dimensions, are of an order so alien, the one to the other, that the comparison can seem to vary between the simplistic and the infantile. Nor would any of us be likely to consider or conceive of it for one moment.

The Illusions of Pugnacity

When the pugnacity against our own Creator however is aroused, people will sometimes act as if reason were an alien, desire the dominant lord. They will perhaps and indeed often act as if the way things mellow and age, the processes by which their created natures grow old, 'speaks' in some amazing way - which some even have the abysmal intellectual folly of calling 'scientific', of the time it took to create them. They may even assume it relates to the way in which they were rendered existent!

If they indeed came conveniently from nowhere, and causality could be dismissed as has repeatedly in these works (see 'causality', indexes) been shown systematically impossible: then the sort of world resultant would in any case be unconstruable and signify nothing.

However, in view of this disparity of creation and operation, of current process and the allied necessity for the creation of all things, in whatever way: the idea that some consonance exists, some parallel between present process and creative performance, between how long it takes for things now to go from stage A to stage B (say in gaining or losing some measurable feature on present rates, assuming they were changeless!), and how long it took to manufacture stage A, becomes facetious. Will God be instructed ? Will the finite construe the creative magnificence of his Creator, and describe by sheer brilliance, HOW He does what He does, when He creates ?

In fact, in this field, more than this: that the results are what they are, and that they are as His book describes them, and that what He calls for, He gets, and nothing at all contrary in any way - we do not know. The universe is called for, and One in the form of God, does it. WE are able simply to examine how it now proceeds. This we do with part of what He created, along with the simpler and more elementary physical universe, in the universe of the mind, and with the spark and evocative power of our spirits (cf. SMR pp. 348ff.). But let us return to the physical universe and the imagination that its creation parallels its operation.

The sheer irrelevance of this humorous gaffe of stupendous effrontery to reality does not always appear, since it is a common exercise in bombastic debate. God under the microscope of the eye He made, being examined as to how He made the eye!

How true it is that man stops at nothing; and how equally untrue, that nothing stops him! Alas, there is the pith of his woe, at the operational level.

Thus, as to all those methods which assume that a process was always a process, began from a process of some allied kind, though now such items have lost the knack of doing this kind of thing, and the whole domain of this style of creation is now ... lost, these are mere manipulations of anti-causal thought. Observation and causation alike are disregarded, magic is invoked and contumacy replaces causality. It does not however have the same effect!

Omitted is the requirement that the process, and indeed the realm of the processive, and each processive world , must be accounted for, unless reason is left with results often enough depicted, but not least this, that all debate, logic and contest is abandoned by any such party. Leave reason out, and abolish reason in your field then; omit reason, and omit your presence in debate which uses it. (Cf. Repent or Perish 7, Excursion 1.)

The source of programmed processes and the basis for organised series is bound neither in Himself nor in His actions and furnishings for events, to the series or to the process. HE is free as creators in general to this degree or that, even on a small scale, are for their creations. It is the product which is less so. Its limitations however are not set like a canvas on the head of Van Gogh, as if they were similar in ageing or creative disposition!

Making a car is not being one; conceiving a building does not depend on bricks in the head; imagination has a freedom of its own, creation a cavorting in its own capacities, which merely confusion would attribute to the nature of the creation, as if the product controlled the producer. Rather is it the contrary.

The concept of the institution of the universe by methods which are of the same order as its running is of this type; the consideration that its maintenance is similar to its creation is of the same order. The thought that the way it ages must or should resemble the modes, rates or methodology of its creation is similarly obtuse, invasive and derelict in logic. It is one invasion that captures no territory, being merely rigid and without evidential basis, while contrary in kind to the nature of creation per se. Not thus do even we create, and we are ourselves in some ways, within an organised system; whereas, as shown in SMR Chs. 1-3, the Creator does not have such limitations, but even if, per impossibile, He were, it still would invade with alien concepts, the very concept of creation.

The Achievement of Nil Relevance
All concepts of time, age, dates which depend on, relate to or invoke such confused concepts as if they were bound to occur, have exactly nil relevance. Ageing, maintenance, creation, procedure when created and in creation are diverse to the uttermost, the very capacities of creation being to act beyond, behind and before what is created.

From so small... an error, come all dating problems that are based on assumptions about the 'beginning', what was there 'at the first', and so on; for the way in which it was PUT there is crucial, and has the luxury of being entirely, wholly and utterly unknown, except for revelation. The ORDER, even, in which things were 'put there' is itself not the WAY in which it was produced, but merely a notation of sequence; if even this indeed were available without revelation. It is rather like asking an author HOW he produced his chapters, and then trying to make them develop, each from the other, by some process of an internal kind relating to the chapters themselves, rather than to the mind of the author.

Worse, it is even like trying to work out from the ordering of letters on the page, the constructive processes of thought, by some kind of statistical method. It is the more strikingly erratic, when the creation is as almost as constant a reality in the mind of man as the searchlight of thought and the aspiration of spirit which works there. Life in man throbs with all of these things, on display without cease. (Cf. TMR Ch.8, pp. 229ff., Ch.7, pp. 139ff..)

This is by no means to remove the relevance of processes in so far as evidence relates to what they are now doing, or show capacity to do, and how long it might take for them to proceed to where they now are, if they had been the sole source of what they produce; it is just that where things were and how they came to be in the beginning, rather limits the relevance when assumptions are made about this topic. The Creator is not bound to produce in ways which relate to the interactions of what is now produced; to put matter in space in ways which relate to how things move in space when once both are created; indeed it would be almost a contradiction in terms to imagine such a thing. (See TMR, Ch.7, Section 4 as above.)

Most different in kind are the POWERS and RESOURCES to create, the SEQUENCES in which creation comes, and the power with which what is created, exhibits what it is NOW made of, being created, by what it now does.

The Current Indications - their limits and their Trend
When, however, even if there had been NONE of some item or element, concentration or compound, in the beginning, and ALL of it were therefore assumed to have been produced since creation, and the time taken would be still short, as happens in many instances as seen in the dating sections of SMR (see Index - dating) and TMR, this has a great significance. It is for this reason. If the most adverse concept for time, that requiring production from zero, for some component, at creation: if this is chosen for a test of maximum apparent time lapsed since creation, the very situation which would require most time to develop, and this is only short, what then ?

Then prima facie attestation of a short time span for the created universe is intense. On the other hand, speculation that a given element, compound or concentration was NOTHING at the first, except for such a testing purpose, is nothing more than that. It demonstrates precisely nothing.

Much indicates, in this careful way, a short tenure for the created universe; and nothing is even challenging to explain in such a schema, while assumptions to the contrary are buried in the sand of obscurantism, being based on data not only not available, but invasive of the very character of creation. It is not that God MUST have made it in this way, put it there in that: it is just that ANY such assumption is merely imagination.

This is by no means to evacuate the thought that the Creator may have left some of the means of His creation available for deduction; it is merely that this is an assumption. Robert Humphreys has shown with considerable skill that certain developments may indeed have been of a certain kind, in some of the early phases of creation of the material universe, enabling us to understand some correlations over time, some placements and the like that may have occurred; which in doing so, would attest a specially young earth. See the Excursion to come, and SMR Index Humphreys.

It would be as foolish to deny the possibility that some phase of material creation COULD have been of such and such a type, as to insist that it MUST have been. Amusingly, the present situation is that a young age for the universe is indicated by numerous measurements of a suggestive kind; an old age depends entirely on assumptions which not merely do not agree with all the evidence, but invade the territory, as shown above, of the irrelevant; but that even if some such approach be embarked on, to some peripheral degree, a young earth is still in view, and this is the case - even if the velocity of light had not decreased, an active topic to this day, despite disclaimers (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 15, "Let there be Light" ).

In the end, this is the arena of ignorance; but what can be known, agrees with the whole gamut of evidence in one way only, a young universe, which had indeed a beginning, together with a commencement of serial time in which our sort of patient waiting to get out of prison or through a course must occur. For some, it may be hard to imagine, to realise that this, our present world, is a highly constricted situation, a fashioned, a crafted one of great constraint. However the considerable freedom of thought is one internal manifestation toward the field of the unrestricted, which should remove such a problem from the arena of thought.

Outside such restricted and containing dimensions, the knowledge and foreknowledge of God is as free as a bird freed from a cage, it soars and moves as if hills were a thing of contempt. However, in this case, there was never any imprisonment, except in the mind of man, manhandling if he could, the freedoms of God in a confusion of creation and maintenance, productive means and product characteristics to a degree almost incredible to conceive ... except when one witnesses over time the torturous writhings of man in divorce from God!

Endnotes:

*1 Cf. SMR Ch.7, Section 4, and Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 27, Appendix III, Biblical Blessings, Ch. 13, A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 12, Repent or Perish Ch.7, Excursion 1) .
*2 See for example, SMR Ch.2, also 1, and 10; A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, and That Magnificent Rock, Chs. 1, 6, 7, 8, with Barbs, Arrows, Balms Items 18, 26, 29, Appendices 1,3,4.

EXCURSION:

For convenience, Item E, in That Magnificent Rock, Chapter 7 is included here; it allows an integration of the detail and the overview to occur more readily. Item F in the same chapter as E is also relevant, and may be consulted here.

E. THE ANTICS OF DATING

Updated Dec. 1999 - see also Ch. 5, esp. pp. 115-132 Answers to Questions.
Some further update, August 2001, and see also Divine Agenda Ch. 1

When did it start? How long ago ? When did WHAT start? The world? Its Maker? Matter? Form for energy? Energy for form? It appears a little unusual to be clear on such questions, prejudice being often preferred. However to ask such vague questions is no way to get precise answers.

If FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE, and indeed, as shown in Vol.1 of the Shadow of a Mighty Rock, from a rational perspective, we ask: WHEN DID GOD BEGIN? The answer is: He did not do so. If we ask, How and why did matter begin? The answer is: He made it in a chosen creation in accord with His power and chosen design criteria. If the question be, WHEN did he make it? Then at least we know our parameters.

This preliminary may seem irrelevant to the question, When did IT begin? But it is far from it.

IF you assume uniformitarian ways of going from nothing (also irrational ways, for to go from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is simply a contradiction in terms), then clearly it will be a different sort of thing from the case of starting (rationally) from something ADEQUATE to produce what you have in mind, to that thing, here matter. Start with nothing, and, if you will forgive the humour, it will take rather a long time. Start with ALMIGHTY GOD and the situation is potentially the EXACT reverse.

Instead (by definition ) of having NO power, you have ALL power. The difference between hand-digging and a steam-shovel is nothing compared with that! And even THAT makes a difference. Ask any manual labourer, and you will find even that difference is profound. It DOES affect quite startlingly the time to elapse for the completion of digging whether you use your hands or a steam-shovel. If you want to make a hole, an atomic bomb is even faster. If God acts, there is no limit.

However maybe the question is not going to be one that involves a self-contradiction at once. Perhaps the question is, How long ago did whatever came before matter act so that matter arose? THAT is a nice question: Could we then clarify? WHAT came before matter, to which you so numerically wish one to refer?

Let us then deal with what we know and acknowledge frankly that depending on the power, intelligence and will that preceded the universe's institution, so are the time parameters for that institution. It is quite useless to say, SINCE you are wrong, how long did it take to found the universe on OUR terms? That would be like asking a Puritan how long it would before he got AIDS from proscribed sexual activity, only much worse. IF, in short, you assume a gradualistic, uniformitarian action on whatever-it-was to make whatever-came next, then you could deal with the entities you imagine and work it all out on the basis of all your varied assumptions. It would be no more or less useful than any other novel.

To be scientific however is quite a another matter. It is not that we despise art forms, it is just that we need to know what genre we have in mind.

ASSUMING WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE MAKES IT EASY

Scientifically, a number of questions relate. Answer them all and you could better answer the first one. COSMOLOGICALLY (*1) the views are diverse, the assumptions monumental and certainties dissipate like morning mist. MODELS can be made with various presuppositions, but these are as sure as the assumptions.
Science by assumption does not prove anything.

Let us merely illustrate. Suppose a series of steps were to occur which would slowly allow some system which had all it took to develop ( that is, aptly and adequately fitted with all the programming etc. required) into something more sophisticated: why then, apart from the oddity of the assumption which is founded on exactly nothing in the way of evidence, it would take just as long as your imaginary parameters for the proto-system which you imagine would require. Another novel.

IF, to take another case, GOD created (as we assert is logically certain), then the time taken, and the methods employed would clearly be ABLE to differ monumentally, infinitely, from the gradualistic, processive, uniformitarian. Thus, to take a minute but parallel case, if I create a story, the TIME depends, not on the rate at which the paper on which it is written deteriorates OR ANY SUCH THING, but on my power and means, and their relationship.

Take light for example: if GOD were creating the universe, then the very concept that the speed of light in its initial and developmental phases (if any) would have to obey what was at length instituted for it, would be simply to ignore the nature of creation, and to ASSUME (wholly illogically and implausibly) that INSTITUTION of light, and events correlative, is IDENTICAL to MAINTENACE or PROCESSION in light, AFTER it is created. The STORY I write comes in ways of its own: they are not nothing. It is not that they lack form and reality; it is just that the very nature of creation is a different form and application of energy and intelligence, from the maintenance of what one creates.

It is of course true that Dr. Russell Humphreys has written some most interesting material, applying the GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY to the sphere of APPARENT time now, relative to creation. He is a mathematician and a research physicist of long standing, and this is rather intriguing. On the assumptions he makes, and the application of the noted theory of Einstein, he comes up with a date for the earth in the area of thousands of years, and the physically discernible possibility of a speed for light vastly in excess of the current rate: because of the MODE of creation which he has in mind. Past all that, however, there is the question of creation as such, getting way past the quite different question of what means like those we see, MIGHT have been employed.

Enough! The cosmological assumptions are all-important in seeking the time answer, for the institution of the universe. Without these, we know NOTHING. That is my own opinion of the date of the institution of the universe FROM THE SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT: It is ENTIRELY unknown. We talk of straining at gnats and swallowing camels: if there was ever such a case, this is it. The PRELIMINARY questions determine the whole thing.

But let us proceed to other aspects.

TAKING A PEEK AT... (of all things in this area) FACTS

We have considered:

1) The COSMOLOGICAL.

Now we note:

2) The INITIAL.

Whatever the cosmological view chosen, there will be a time by which the thing is in action - the universe. WHAT however was the concentration of this and that radioactive material (if any), and what the extent to which all processes are set at zero, or all combinations of producer and product are of one (assumed) type? When I create, I may use ANYTHING, something already showing some process, or brand new, in any combination.

When you cease to blind your imagination by thinking poor old 'god' is not very clever, you realise that just as WE can use what we will (to a point) so HE can do so, only incalculably more. The term 'incalculably' is used here advisedly.

You simply, indeed, have no idea of what products are placed at the outset in this or that state, or in what ratios any particular combinations occur, or indeed whether some elements were at given situation or not, or in what amount. You DO NOT KNOW. That is the only cosmologically, rationally honest answer. There is SO MUCH that depends on assumptions, that by this time, to make even more is an exercise in imagination. The cardinal reality is that:

Process does not direct creation: it interprets it.

However, DEPENDING on the initial conditions, ratios, amounts, and so on, is the WHOLE question: HOW LONG did it take to go from that to this, which we now see? If I start my golf drive half-way up the fairway, it will surely make a difference in this question: HOW LONG it will take my ball to land(?) on the green... Initial point, rate and final point are inter-related questions. We do not know the first. Nor do we know the mode of arrival, or the conditions by which it arrived.

This however is not all that is involved in our first little question.

There is also :

3) the RATE

at which the change from the ASSUMED first state in the IMAGINED (or believed) scenario, to the current one has come. This is quite determinative - or one of the determinants. However we do not KNOW

a) what the rate has been, only what is or was a short time ago;

b) what variations there have been, and although there is evidence as Dr. Slusher has shown, of variation under certain conditions (and the conditions WE are considering for this question are obviously as extreme as one could wish, or may be), the extent is not sure, any more than the initial material is sure, or the way it got here. (That is, from a simply scientific point of view).

We also do not KNOW:

4) THE PRECISE FORCES

to which these processes have been subjected, although the work of Professor Tom Barnes (*2) of El Paso University in Texas is a monumental thrust to exhibit very large magnetic forces were at play on our earth, in the early stages. These things are such extremes as to leave questions of rate, along with the evidences of effects from changing conditions on them, UNKNOWN. We may GUESS, on our preferred cosmological view, and assume further that it WORKED ITSELF OUT in this way and not in that: but we do not know. The more we know about what we did not know forty years ago, the more scientifically ridiculous it is to pose as knowledgeable on all such questions even in terms of precise issues; but when these pose cosmological presuppositions, the effort is of small impact.

Nor do we know:

5) HOW MUCH OF THE SUBSTANCE

we use for checking dates has been leached, lost, dissolved, disturbed, polluted and so forth; so that the ELEMENTS of our equations are ALSO in doubt.

It is therefore small wonder that we do not KNOW:

6) why there is such ENORMOUS variation

between different RADIO-dating methods, when they are applied to the same substance, so OFTEN, and why these results - as in the Hawaii case (SMR p. 241) - can be ludicrous, making millions of years date for something happening hundreds of years go.

An amusing case is given in CREATION magazine, Dec. 1999, Feb. 2000 on pp. 19-21. In this instance, the variation between dating methods is KNOWLEDGE as to when rock was formed, and DATING TECHNIQUE (with potassium argon) as to when it SHOULD have occurred!

Gifted and original geologist, Dr Andrew Snelling, refers to Mt Ngauruhoe as New Zealand's newest volcano - and one of the most active. Rising to some 7500 feet, it erupted in 1948, with a lava flow proceeding thereafter down the north-western slopes, in 1949. About 20 million cubic feet was the estimated volume of lava. In 1954 an eruption hurling blocks with ash, occurred with some 8 million cubic metres of lava. Further activity occurred in 1974, with an ash column soaring into the atmosphere. Blocks of some 1000 tons were hurled hundreds of metres. Then in 1975, a huge violence occurred, with blocks up to 100 ft across catapulted almost 2 miles.

Snelling then notes the conditions of dating, via assumptions: 1) no daughter radiogenic atoms in the extrusion; 2) rock must be a closed system after hardening; 3) radioactive decay rate must be constant. "If," he indicates, "any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any 'dates' are false."

11 samples were collected from the five recent and conspicuous lava flows during field work in 1996 - from the flows of 1954, 1975 and 1954. All with maps were clearly indentified. Various carefully checked samples were sent to an eminent laboratory for dating. The dates for the age of the ROCKS were of the order of millions of years. The laboratory manager re-checked his equipment and tested again. The results were similar.

Since the rocks are KNOWN to be of the order of 50 years old, the apparent 'age' is assumed to have come from 'excess' argon, radiogenic inclusion, in the lava, before the rocks formed. This sort of failure is "also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics and ancient crustal rocks," Snelling adds, giving references.

Here the INITIAL SITUATION assumptions are wrong, but confidently made (cf. SMR pp. 240), just as the VARIABLE RATE can be merely a theory based on philosophical preference, abstracting from the ages to the present, or to the ages from concepts of choice. As noted, Professor Keith Wanser indicated (CREATION, Sept.-Nov. 1999, p. 40) that - "It's not really widely known that standard quantum electrodynamics predicts that the speed of light (c) is a function of the field strength, thus changeable in principle ... some are starting to accept that c may not be some eternally immutable thing." IF THIS is NOW known, what else ?

Playing with these fundamentals, in the midst of unexperienced catastrophes and unobserved onsets, and extrapolated to creation itself, when by its very nature (and even Davies accepts it began) its institution is no mirror copy of its subsequent maintenance, it is almost like philosophy itself: a work for bright young minds, not overburdened with factuality. Speaking of that, we recall the work of Dr Russell Humphreys, who has shown a DIFFERENT aspect of the matter, in terms of General Relativity theory, so that estimates of age can ON THOSE TERMS be hugely astray, based on false hypotheses.

It is not that this or that point is stressed particularly: just that the whole scope and array of the unknowns, the problematics, in principle, allied to the whole scope of time and catastrophe on the one hand, and to the assumptions about the first state from which dates are to be assessed, is so huge a quiddity as to make the field in the older times in particular, more like a jumble sale of uncertain origins and assumptions. When creation itself, the beginnings of this universe, are considered as well, the entirety is rather a field for the horse-play of mere assumption, than a field for science. If and If and ASSUMING this and that, and provided the other ... and then philosophy calls its siren talk, and the STATEMENTS are made with all the authority of mystic trances.

When it comes therefore to facts, let us be consistent, not intruding the playthings of ideas into such mundane questions as dates. IF far more were known, then we could be much more sure of getting much more consistent dates, and far fewer gross anomalies. However, it is not, and we do, and the reasons themselves for all this, begin to appear.

In this case in New Zealand, we could CHECK UP; and hence we can know THAT the technique is wrong, and consider the presumed error basis. In other cases, there is simply the DIFFERENCE between different dating techniques, which having their own assumptions, run their own perils, and their NON-AGREEMENT is rather like that of two poor students in a class, who do not have the same answer to a mathematics problem. The reason, in general, is often simple: BOTH ARE WRONG. Neither have what it takes at that point.

We do not in general and surely KNOW why there is such enormous variation between dating results. It ... all depends.

Nor do we KNOW:

7) why parts of the SAME rock can give amazingly different answers for age, though we may GUESS, or ASSUME our way to some sort of 'knowledge'. This however is not sufficient to prevent such measuring troubles. We DO KNOW that these enormous variations, variabilities and uncertainties are in full accord with the fact that often 'RIDICULOUS' dates are discarded in an endeavour to make the ones accepted 'fit', in a way statistical methods support. The THEORY dictates the terms of the selection in such cases, instead of the data being given unslanted scrutiny. Such is not science but philosophy, in a measuring suit. (The distinguished scientists, Professor E.H. Andrews gives meticulous data on this question in his work, God Science and Evolution, pp. 109-127, cf. SMR pp. 237,241,246-248.)

Talking of what we DO (*3) know, for a pleasant change, we do also know that very MANY rates of a simpler and readier character for measurement DO show an age for the earth in the area of thousands of years; and indeed Dr. Russell Humphreys who is writing on such topics, has noted that in his view there are about 90% of all relevant measuring methods that DO give a date for the earth's age in terms of thousands of years. These would include those mentioned in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, such as the rate of disturbed lunar rock shape-recovery, the rate of cooling of the earth, the rate of change of its magnetic field and the nature of that field, salt concentration in the ocean, the helium concentration in the atmosphere, and the fact that carbon dioxide measurements of the ordinary and radioactive isotope components, imply a world of merely thousands of years: since the ratios are not stabilised. (See Index, Dating, SMR.)

From a strictly scientific point of view, the writer would have to say:

1. The date is not at all known.

2. The preponderance of evidence favours a young earth.

3. The difficulties of dealing with the divergence on dates, among evidences, are not great for a young earth, but seem insurmountable for an older one.

4. Much more would need to be know before any idea could be given.

From a Biblical viewpoint, the read-out might be this:

5. The Biblical date for life is certainly in thousands of years only.

6. The absolute initiation date is unsure, but almost certainly the same.

7. The huge agreement of the great mass of evidence with these propositions is what is to be expected; and the lack of concurrence on all sides is equally what is to be expected when knowledge is making such sciences outdated in a few years.

However:

There is no systematic problem whatever on a Biblical perspective, whereas the other option has insuperable difficulties at the outset with its cosmology leaving total ignorance in many spheres. Failure to recognise this, and nothing else, is making the scientific problem. No problem in this field exists for the Bible believer. Where science keeps within its competence, its accord with the Bible is notable. As shown in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, 3 MAJOR PHYSICAL LAWS are IMPLIED! (pp.330ff. in that work).

As to the First, The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, Scriptures fundamental to this include: Isaiah 45:12, 48:12-13, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:3, 11:3.As to the Second, The Second Law of Thermodynamics (see the above cited work, pp. 330ff., and Index), Scriptures to the point include: Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:25-27, Hebrews12:25-27 with II Peter 3:10. As to the Third, the Law of Biogenesis, consult Genesis 1:11,21,25,28. Also relevant here are Matthew 24:35, 19:4ff., Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24.

For a production dating back well over three millenia, its irrefutable statements to this effect show prodigious performance characteristics, not merely unparalleled, in their total prophetic setting, but in sharp contrast to any production of any science. Contemporary Science, in comparison with this BASIC LAW SIGNIFYING BIBLE, is an infant in arms as to constancy and consistency.

The Bible does not change, goes deep, and stays there. It gave knowledge from thousands of years ago, duly confirming this in the New Testament: knowledge of what ? Of the basic character of the 3 crucial laws of physical science taught to it through the scientific methodology: information, observation, data based laws.

The Bible spoke, science echoes. Science is after all the ordered thought of man in such areas; and where it keeps to its mandate of method, such agreement is not surprising.

It is of course fascinating as a commentary on recent generations of philosophically gyrating thought (contemporary models in vogue), that evolutionism, organic naturalism is neither confirmed by categorical evidence, sustained by correlative laws, implemented to the eyes of observation nor available for test, as it cringes in the twilights of time, wanting, always wanting something to redeem it from its lost estate. What has not got it, will not produce it! ... is far to simple! The Bible however does not however alter. There is never a reason why it should.

It may be noticed that one used the term 'Science'. The actual science, however, not as a philosophic substitute for thought, but as a disciplined procedure in observation, inference, creation of hypotheses, verification, refinement, validation and rejection or confirmation: this continues as it has for so long, quite a useful pursuit. It has the wit not to play God, or to tell Him it doesn't want to play with Him any more, because of aspirations of its own. That is for the quasi-respectable pseudo-'Science'.

As to that, and consequences of not taking God to heart: notice that the Bible declares that man as he is, is blighted both by sin and the curse on the earth, and needs redemption. Re-creation (not mere recreation) is declared as a fundamental necessity for the inhabitants of the earth to so much as continue in their order and their function here. Further, it is stated that this fact is to appear with increasing obviousness over time... our time! The creation and what was done in this sphere subsequently in the curse (SMR Ch.2, S1-S33, pp. 179-190, 472-498), require a further act of creation for which the parameters are clear, were long stated, and without which the climax will duly arrive (like a medical prognosis, but this one is certain). Then, said Christ: "Except those days were shortened, there should no flesh be saved" - Matthew 24:22.

These laws of denying the dominion of Jesus Christ and their results ("the law of sin and death" - Romans 8:1), they with the others, they progress and continue as stated... in the Bible. The mouth of Jesus Christ is the mouth of a truth which isinvariably verified under due test.

After all, as the Bible clearly states (and cf. Ch. 6 of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock), without that living word of God who was incarnated as Jesus Christ, THERE WAS NOTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE (John 1:3).

The Creator has His own prescriptions, both internal and external, for man, and it is in Himself that it is fulfilled and must be met (Matthew 20:28, II Corinthians 5:18-21; II Peter 3:11-18). It is then that "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", as Paul says (Romans 8:2), makes one free. Mercifully the way is both near and clear to the reception of His redemption (Galatians 3:10-13, 5:1-25, John 10:9,27-28, 4:14, Romans 10:9).

Endnotes

*1.See The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, 1995 SUPPLEMENT on Cosmology, pp. S1-S34, following Ch.2. On dates see SMR pp. 208-252B also.

*2. Updated, September 1999, July 2000.
For further in the areas of *2 and *3 below, with additional update in the area, see That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 7 E.

See on the velocity of light, startling and verificatory new developments, in

His Time is Near Ch. 9 .

See also:

Barbs, Arrows and Balms 15

Divine Agenda Ch. 1,

Calibrating Myths Ch. 1,

and The Defining Drama Ch. 3.

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

AN EXCURSION OF INTEREST -
To BEGIN OR NOT TO BEGIN, and having begun, HOW TO PROCEED.
The first was never our business, but its results are; and the second is our observation.

Barnes in his "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field" stresses grounds for the non-generation of magnetic fields in this setting - i.e. for magnetic fields NOT being produced from our terrestrial situation, by the earth - from the structure of the earth; just as he provided reason for the necessity of a declining field for the earth over time. This decline has in fact has been measured, and is in accord with his prediction, based on creationist premises. THIS is one of the things which is crucial about scientific method: ANY view, hypothesis, presentation must be able to verify itself, and the more it does so, in the more fields, with the greater improbability of such results in a given case, the more impressive this is; and the more it ties in with diverse fields, the more commanding such a fact becomes.

Following the presentation of Barnes in this field: What is left is a picture of initial invention of magnetism (which would be part of the ab initio, from the first structure deposited in creation) and decline, as in other creation on this earth. This case of magnetism simply has successful prediction added, as a special feature, based on that background; it is a useful plus. It is, in this, similar to the feat of Russell Humphreys who, on creationist, non-gradualist principles, predicted other results which have come to pass, as we shall see later. As Physicist, Keith Wanser (professor Physics, California State University, Fullerton) points out, of the latter, 'There's no evolutionary model that has come anywhere close in that department' - in competition with this sort of precision and prediction (Creation-Ex Nihilo, Sept.-Nov. 1999, p. 40).

Because of the logical requirements, you would expect this sort of superiority, and you find it. That is simply more verification. As is the nature of truth, when you are right, and especially right in perspective, the free flow of confirmation can be all but overwhelming.

Barnes for his part, also used the scientific past and referred, along with his own investigations, to the view of Sir Horace Lamb, who earlier had presented the concept of freely decaying currents in the earth, with an associated freely decaying magnetic field for the earth. That is, we are here not conceiving of their GENERATION, but that they are THERE and this being so, in the status quo, they are to be expected to decline, in precisely the way, in this particular setting, that they do.

Thus Barnes notes that measurements of the earth's field have been made for (what is now) about one and one half centuries, and that the data allow the expectation of using the field, which is changing in understood mathematical terms for decay, as a CLOCK! If other clocks were lost. Lamb's predictions stood the test of time! Over time, this aspect of time (as a part of creation) is confirmed by time.

This situation required for its actual operation, a conductivity better than that of the earth's surface; and this of course is provided by earth's core of some metallic kind or ingredient, for which there are important data in the earth, as with the 3 magnetically significant moons of Jupiter.

It may be useful here to revert to Barnes, in terms of the consequences of this approach.

The actual data for earth indicate a process of decay of the magnetic field which, as he showed (op.cit. pp. 23-24), has large implications for the repulsive power of earth towards cosmic rays. The scenario: These rays are impinging on the earth's atmosphere, so producing neutrons which in turn transmute nitrogen to carbon 14 - the radioactive variety. Since carbon dating is dependent on the assumption that the carbon 14 production rate in the past is similar to that of the present, the carbon dates so obtained are simplistic. They are indicated by this consideration, to be too high. Indeed, the further back in history one goes, the bigger the error, states Barnes, since the relevant mathematical curve over time is an exponential one! The far greater past magnetic field for the earth increases rate, shortens time for the result, and does so most dramatically the further back one goes. The read-out is a small number of thousands of years for the entire time of magnetic field reduction. Reversals to not generate magnetism, and as always, the absence of generatie facilities constrains to the simple question: How long has this wasting magnetic field been going, could it have been going ? This then is the answer in empirical terms, based on rates observed and laws in motion.

In view of Melvin Cook's point that a non-equilibrium condition now exists between carbon 12 and carbon 14 in the earth's atmosphere, and the effect this has in reducing estimated dates by changing the mathematical assumptions, Barnes' point just noted, re magnetic field data is reinforced in a double-action date-reduction, as he notes (Barnes op.cit. p.40, cf. SMR pp. 237-238, 247). The relevant C14/C12 ratio would also be affected if there were in ancient times more carbon 12 in the atmosphere, prior to cosmic interaction, again requiring a downward dating adjustment (Morris, op.cit. p.166).

The non-equilibrium fact itself further suggests a short age for the earth's atmosphere (Morris, Scientific Creationism, pp. 164ff), and a comparison of Carbon 14 formation and decay rates provides an avenue for estimate of the age of the earth's atmosphere, in fact in terms of thousands of years. This in turn is in full accord with the purely magnetic inferences to which Barnes refers. So it ties together.

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 ben 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.a. 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,
"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 revived1500 different types of ancient micro-organism.

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 C¹⁴or 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."

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.

Thus Creation (June-August 1998, p. 19) covers the point. The rate of production and dispersion can be worked out, together with the escape rate from the atmosphere, into space. When all the aspects are covered, and even on the assumption NO helium was the initial contribution (an extravagant guess, again), current rates suggest a MAXIMUM age of 2 million years. If there were more at first, this maximum would be lessened, and it would be lessened in terms of the bulk reduction, in view of the initial amount. No known escape mechanisms to remove this challenge are empirically found. The Creation article also cites Dr Robert Gentry's work in seeking safe storage for radioactive material. He found zircons, mineral crystals containing helium, which had far too much helium residue for an age in millions of years; but the findings did not collide with an age of thousands of years for the pre-Cambrian rocks concerned (cf. Robert Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, pp. 179-180).

So the evidence is not available to relieve the distress of the vexed and vexatious dating assumptions, guesswork and dogmatism. Empirically, the situation is just what it is in principle, when known laws of science operate. After this brief excursion, we ponder again the magnetic field situation, for the earth.

Now let us turn to events nearer to the arrival of our earth.

Is there any theory presenting also some idea of what may have been related to the procedure of the Almighty in creating the earth's magnetic field ? Is there further attestation of a detailed character available, to serve as a yet further plus to the generic realities which we have discussed, previously (SMR Chs.1-3, with Ch.1 above), in this case ? Let us see.

Notable, and once again in terms of prediction in the same field of magnetism, is the work of Dr. Russell Humphreys, who

has worked out an hypothesis which may indicate something of the method the Almighty used in the original production of magnetic field.
has, as with the work of Barnes, the inestimable advantage of making predictions which are verified. On the basis of his creationist, young-earth approach, Humphreys predicted the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune.

Published beforehand, his projected figures were some 100,000 times larger than those based on evolutionary theory (Creation-Ex Nihilo, June -August 1993, p.20). The test therefore seemed an exceedingly clear one for distinction between the competitive capacities of the two approaches to account for the evidence. If X in this gets 100% and Y gets 1%, the disparity is great. Here however the results are not merely 100 times better, but 100,000 times so. Where preliminary assumptions or configurations of thought are in view, and this disparity occurs between the capacity of each, there is an immediate ousting of one competitor, assuming the data are correct, and the prediction made was correctly worked out, while at this point, the other has marked superiority. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE in scientific method, to cling conscientiously to a theory which is anti-verified in ANYTHING, once the facts of the application are assured.

If it is wrong, it is not right. It is changed or killed. Nor is this one feature; it is repeated ad nauseam in this arena of the evolutionary hypothesis and creation. But let us return to the particular magnetic case.

The divergence was intense and immense; and Humphreys' figures were verified in no uncertain manner when the measured and practical figures becoming available, the two approaches could be compared. 100,000 times superior, and twice verified in a major happening is no mean feat. Other correlatives of his hypothesis in terms of universe age and the transmission of light are noted earlier in this Section.

In the September-November, 1997 edition of Creation Ex-Nihilo, p. 8, there is further verification for Humphreys in terms of the four largest moons of the planet Jupiter: Ganymede, Io, Europa and Callisto. The first three have cores and are equipped with magnetic fields; while Callisto has neither core nor field. Since Europa's magnetic dipole has an 80^otilt away from the spin axis, even evolutionary-disposed theorists issued a report in Science, May 23, 1997, p. 1239, acknowledging that for such a scenario it is unlikely the field has been generated by a core dynamo. Barnes of course showed earlier there was no way for such a generation in the first place, from the earth per se, while predicting the field decrease in the case of earth, effectively on the creation basis adopted.

The new information merely confirms in this extended way, a field with new exotica against any such imaginary generation. The phenomenon is not going away, and the current magnetic field production theories are not accounting for them. What does account for them is what is being confirmed both by measurement and increased scope of investigation. Initial fields decaying at the measured rates in question require a very young earth indeed, as Barnes showed. Humphreys' theory has a very young earth scenario resulting from the concepts involved, which include some work from the General Relativity theory of Einstein; and his predictions have been astronomically startling in their accuracy.

Finally, it is interesting in our principial coverage of time, and merely reinforces the obvious
fact stated in this article, that the assumption that what is NOW the case in physical law for an EXISTING universe is by no means to be assumed to be the case for one in the process of formation. It is not logically plausible to say: IF THAT had happened then, at institution of the system, then what happens now, that the system is up and running is a sure index of what would be the case then.

In fact, maintenance phenomena in any field, cannot be assumed identical with creation phenomena. Thus, in the former case, the forces and qualitatively institutive activities are by nature those which RESULT in what became the universe, or any given phase of it; whereas the forces and qualitative activities of the present do NOT result in universe. They result in its mere continuance (not that this is a small thing, but it is a very DIFFERENT one!). The glibness of assumptions that the one acts as the other, that the developed situation acts in the parameters of the starting one, are mere imagination dressed as science. When matter's own formation is in view, the assumptions of uniformity become ludicrous.

On this basis, we have pointed out that the velocity of light may not with aplomb, like the insistences of some traditionalist in religion, be assumed comparable with that which related to its formation.

It is in this connection that the words of Professor Wanser bring back a little more rationality to the physical bombast which so often is touted as if by a football match crowd, showing only too clearly how perceptive was Lord Zuckerman when he noted that when the core of their beliefs was shown wrong, scientists could be just as perverse, obstinate or insensitive as any one else (see SMR p. 205). It is the method not the man which is to the point.

Wanser pointed out in an interview reported above, this:

"It is not really widely known that standard quantum electrodynamics predicts that the speed of light (c) is a function of the field strength, thus changeable in principle. I've been playing around with this for years, and while it's still heretical, some are starting to accept that c may not be some eternally immutable thing."

He is further quoted as making this statement: "In fact, there are good reasons to believe that c might be drastically altered in the near vicinity of an electron; recognition of this might help to develop a viable theory for this particle" - (pp.40-41, op.cit., emphasis added).

It is of course precisely during the invention or ordination of any new phase of things that the changes which induce these results that come to be our system, would be required to be remarkably different from the situation which does NOT produce our system. It is thus intrinsically not merely ludicrous, but misleading in the extreme ever to use data which relate to a total picture, its commencement exercises and its maintenance phase, as if they could be assumed the result merely of the present, or read back from the present to the past. It is rather like assuming that the rate of change of a musical score during its production is similar to that shown in its yellowing age in some university or museum. In fact, some musicians create fast, some more slowly, some with many revisions (like Bach), some with express speed, perhaps like Handel at times. The object brought into existence has a very different set of parameters from the one being formed!

It is in this situation, this complex case with which we are faced, that it becomes far more understandable that the various radiometric approaches to dating, with their various assumptions (cf. SMR Ch.2) produce such discordant results that many geologists want the fossil 'confirmation' before being too sure what the right date might be, selected in some cases from exceedingly divergent possibilities in the measuring process, as shown (loc.cit.). In fact, Professor Wanser (loc.cit.) adds from the area of his professional expertise, that "when you get the nucleus 'excited', decay is going to be much quicker, making things look vastly 'older'. People have been talking recently about magnetic stars giving off big bursts of gamma rays; there are all sorts of ways that radiometric 'clocks' could have been reset catastrophically, during the Flood for example.' " (Cf. SMR pp. 237ff., and the work of Physics Professor Harold Slusher, SMR pp. 77ff., in *13, pp. 76ff..)

Barnes' reference to the highly diverse results in the production of C¹⁴ atoms, in the presence of an exponentially greater magnetic field, which is not merely assumed but indicated by the data long recorded: these are merely one particular example of this generic fact. The PARTICULAR effect of the higher magnetic field, in times past, is the reduction by calculation of the age involved. This has the same effect in this regard, as that of a slower light speed, and accords with the other dating data noted (loc.cit.), indicative of a younger earth. (See also *3 infra.)

Waser also points out the current impasse in the 'big bang' theory, which while it stresses beginnings, which are to be assumed in any case from the various processes which are not for ever in their degrading, is filled with the folly of Descartes in loose imaginings without the discipline of all the evidence, as seen elsewhere in this article. The point he makes here is this: If one were to imagine matter being made out of energy, as in this theory in some current vogue, then it requires one to "end up with equal amounts of matter and antimatter." This is widely divergent from the facts that are found in the universe. So this 'scientific law' (re antimatter) is 'violated' in the interests of the theory ('big bang') - exactly as in the case of the Darwinian hypothesis, as repeatedly shown (cf. SMR pp. 140ff.).

If this law is violated, he continued, then "this would make protons unstable, so for years they've been looking in vain for even one proton to decay.

"They haven't found it, and all indications are that the proton must be stable for a period of time much larger than previously thought possible, more than 1,000 billion billion times the assumed evolutionary age of the universe. This makes it completely impossible for the 'big bang' to work" - op.cit. pp. 40-41.

Quite apart from the logic of the situation as presented in SMR Chs.1-3, these mathematical expressions of disdain for the suggested secular hypotheses are like those manufactured (even when there is more to come as we show in SMR pp. 226ff., cf. 234-236, 252Eff.) for other aspects of the naturalist fiasco, which is really the desire or hope for what does not show capacity, to somehow have it any way! (cf. Joyful Jottings 3, 2,). Time does not increase the scope of an inadequate system, but as Dr A.E. Wilder Smith shows, merely ensures that the system's ingredients, its intrinsic content, expresses itself with more accuracy (cf. Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, pp. 55ff., cf. 88ff.). What is in fact required is treated in some detail in Repent or Perish Ch.7, pp. 141ff., with implications and comparisons, assessments and applications to the point at issue. This continues to the end of the chapter, at p. 179, and is correlative to parallel phenomena cited in SMR pp. 252I-S34. (On the topic of man, in this connection, see Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 81, with 82 and SMR pp. 204ff., with indexes for SMR and the 21.)

Indeed, Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge fame regards these hopes as "evidently nonsense of a high order", and of course duly proceeded to write about 'The Intelligent Universe', correctly construing that intelligence as a quality has results of a comparable, characterisable quality. In a purely empirical way, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard explodes against the gradualistic hypothesis in terms of its being 'literally incomprehensible', however reluctant that admission may have come to be later: this was the impactive result of reviewing the multiplicity, facility and complexity of completed things in the Cambrian era!

But it is not really the result of reluctance. The Bible presents another ground (Romans 1:18ff.) for the rejection of the Creator, so that Biblical creationism not only accounts for the creation in the only way which is logically defensible, as shown from the above references, but with this added touch of mastery, that it accounts also for the widespread distaste for the concept of creation as well! and for that matter, predicts that this will become a phenomenon of note in our own season of history, as of course it is. (Cf. Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 74, pp. 103ff.). Surely here is a majesty which analyses the resistance, accounts for it and presents what stands over thousands of years, with all the apparent ease of a tennis champion rolling off one more overpowering drive. In this case, this too is what one would expect from such infinite superiority to man, and that in turn thus constitutes another internal verification to add to the innumerable external ones.

The universe we have requires a beginning, a cause sufficient and all attempts to make it manufacture itself without capacity are merely confirmed mathematically. All efforts to make it SHOW this capacity are merely shunned by the facts. Its dying character is everywhere to be seen. The thought of it as a mother is contrary to all evidence; but most of all to the precise requirements of logic, which merely has its confirmation in the empirical world of actual structures, times and events. In surveying all the evidence, we see that the misdirection of a religious yen, enquiry, desire, which is inherent in man not least because of the rational capacities with which he has been endowered, and their outcome. It is because he also bears opportunity by his nature of direct relationship of his spirit to his Creator, however distorted this may become in transfer to objects and their processes, that his revolts appear like an epidemic in the history of our race (cf. Romans 1).

The ludicrous irrationalities, being misdirected like a stream that must have some outlet, have been seen from early Greek thinkers, wanting everything to come from water, fire, change, non-change, as also in the worshipping of heavenly bodies, or the universe, or in you will, the smuggled insertion into it of the super-human and indeed divine characteristics to create it (cf. Joyful Jottings 3, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3, SMR p. 422E-L). This they do (cf. Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 80, pp. 160ff.), in ways as varied as humorous - their grave consequences apart - as if thinking would invent them, whereas we ourselves in our material instruments, our bodies, are the codified productions of thought (cf. Repent or Perish Ch.7, Scoop of the Universe 57, SMR Ch.3) , underlying our spirits and their quests. Thus Zephaniah has call to declare:

"I will cut off ... those who worship the host of heaven on their housetops" (1:5) and again in 2:11:

"For the Lord will be awesome to them,
For He will reduce to nothing all the gods of the earth,"

just as in Jeremiah we find this (10:11):

"Thus you shall say to them: 'The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.' "

Now the idolatrous fabrication is with mental idols, preachers of this unrighteousness now to be seen as physicists, biologists, sociologists, psychogists, with the hidden their forte, the unevidenced their thrill, the vanishing their focus; though their physical counterparts are as clear as ever, and as devoid of those divine powers with which man in his fancies would invest them. In this, those beguiled in this manner, and many are more than willing, seem rather like a young lady adoring her heroic swain, in whom alas the qualities of heroism are more apparent to her eyes than to the curriculum vitae, or to the eyes of others. To so imagine is alas to worship, not a mere hero, but the divine where it is not. Penalties are not puny for such misappropriation of deity's name, even if sobriquets and phrasings disguise the attribution. One of the chief is the fruit of the very delusion itself, divorcing life from its source with all attendant consequences.

But let us return from this visit to the religious aberrations to which the flesh is heir, through the rife hyperactivities of imagination and the failure to reckon with the realities of reason and evidence. The underlying cause of any eccentricity of thought, it is always sound to be able to consider in any survey, and these are multiply attested; but it is for now rather to the overlying facts of the data that we refer.

These are the bones of the matter, as we find with consistency and continuity in the various fields considered. That these varied negative results in principle are themselves predictable is the simple result of breaching the logical principles from the outset, as shown in SMR Chs.1-3. That the efforts to find what is not there, merely reveal the nature of what is required, step by step, as the absences mount to reveal a configuration of what should be present (see Ch.1 above).

THIS then is where science is useful in this area of apologetics - the facts constantly refuse to be browbeaten into what would invalidate the logic which from the first has required the Creator and His work, in order for the universe to so much as exist, or our own thoughts to have any validity. On the contrary, in serene seeming indifference to all this naturalism, the universe facts and intrinsic procedures are what they are, and do not bend to the role of being their own creator.

As to what is required in terms of logic: The validity resulting from this absolute truth, the Creator, being known, then ties in with the use of the reason which points out that He is there and knowable; so that what is required by logic is what is confirmed by what it finds, the word of God. This same validity then results in the constant and consistent confirmation of His presence and ways which is above exemplified. Coherence, consistency and insistence are the unique and privileged requirement of the truth, and they reside in one place only. It has many rooms, as well as a street address.

*3.

See The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, page 241.

Also of interest, in the way of update (1997), the constant combinations of FORM in the universe, of SPECIALISED and SPECIFIC character is not at all limited to the staggering linguistic codes and commands in the DNA. In CREATION Ex-Nihilo (June-August 1997), there is an extension of the oft-noted fact of a vast wall of galactic structure 'early' in the universe's hypothesised times, contrary to all randomness and expectation. THAT expectation of the Unexpected, IS expected in ALL fields, because of

i) the frequently rehearsed requirements of logic for the Creator, as shown for example in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1, and SMR Chs.1-3,10, and

ii) the continual and continuous exhibition of JUST SUCH SPECIFICITY as accompanies creation and does NOT appear as the norm in uncontrolled, uncommanded exhibitions of the chaotic.

The interesting features, which fit into the data like leaves cut to size in a book, are these.

A. Creation magazine, Sept.-Nov. 1996, pp. 26ff. notes that in addition to the discovery of the Great Wall of massive galactic formations, in areas which astronomers theoretically consider likely to be near the beginning of our universe's formation, and contrary to the Big Bang distribution scenario, there is now aggravation in the form of more of the same. More powerful telescopic work has enabled preliminary analysis to suggest many "structures the size and shape of the Great Wall, but dozens of times farther away" (Science, Vol. 272, June 14, 1996, p. 1590).

Indeed, Arizona University astronomer, William Tifft, having long claimed that "red shifts" , normally supposed to measure the distance of galaxies, fall into distinct packets or quanta. Creation notes that Oxford's Bill Napier and Bruce Guthrie (Edinburgh), after studying 200 galaxies, claim Tifft's basic thrust is right. "Explosions" with measured steps for particles (here galaxies) are too rich even for cow's milk. Order is inextricable! Actually, the Big Bang follies were part of the delusive apparatus of the thought of Descartes, though he had a more orthodox base for the bang.

Such things are always peripheral to the realities, mere paint over the wood-work, which fails to realise that the wood came from trees. Differently expressed, random expulsive forces are merely useful in populating universes, not creating them; for dispersing realities, not making them; and whatever "forces" create acceleration, need transcendent order to create the laws and structure of what, being originated, is accelerated. The concept borders on the childish, being a simplistic piece of reductionism that has not even a generic genesis, but as it were, a moving van for furniture which it does not bother to have crafted.

By way of update, we might add here from a finding exhibited in Creation Vol. 22, No 1, Dec. 1999- Feb. 2000, p. 8.

Noting the Cosmological Principle, that used in the ‘Big Bang’ scenario for the universe’s deposition, the article observes that the Hubble Space Telescope has now seen far more of the universe than in Einstein’s day (when the above principle was assumed). Things universe-wise appear "anything but uniform", we find, with the flattest of contradictions making this assumption seem rather like the flat earth concept that some indulged in. "Galaxies are gathered together in great chains and walls which curl around vast regions of empty space known as ‘voids’." Nottingham University’s professor of astrophysics acknowledges that the universe is not uniform, and is cited as follows: "We’re lost… The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation or the distribution of galaxies in the universe. "New Scientist, August 21, 1999 (pp. 23-26), and Science, April 16, 1999, pp. 445-446 are cited.

This of course is merely further confirmation of the phenomenal vast walls of galactic materials, already noted, and ranged in their concentrations, in acutely inappropriate places for the thoughts of this kind.

Another way of saying this ? the evidence is reluctant to meet theoretical notations of uniformitarianism. Indeed, it cannot be induced to do so and is always a ‘problem child’. That this relates to science is of course the rag doll of philosophy of the 20-21st centuries!

What would you expect ? That uniformity make specificity! That nothing makes things uniform, and then improves on that feat of irrationality, by making them specialised ? Or that activity is creativity, even if it arose from nothing, by some lapse of logic so vast that ever afterwards it has been at pains, if not in penance, to make amends ? Or that cause is a vain concept, and the reason or cause for that thought is … something which assumes the validity of causality ? Such are the uniformly ludicrous types of assumption, or self-contradiction indeed, which many have, underlying these substitutes for thought. Such febrilities act as if the power in the present order of things is self-accounting, like the poor, looking into the Gates of Buckingham Palace, and assuming that it all came from some alley by a strange form of osmosis, or a surge of something or other which did not have what it takes to build.

So are hopes of rebellion built on an abstraction from what is there, a removal from what is found and what is causally needed, in the interests of the nugatory formulations of admitted incoherence. You can fabricate in thought; but when it comes to fact, you need power and concept, creativity and a well-managed interface both for your symbols of operation, words or thoughts or whatever, and your agencies of implementation. Nothing is even worse than something inadequate, when it comes to creation. When it is all both contrary to empirical reality and logical necessity, we are dealing with romance; and it is simply a fact that some of the great romantic novels of our time are written by one group of scientists, and oddly, compounded with their serious work.

Meanwhile, in Creation Technical Journal Volume 13, No 1, 1999, we find that Professor’s Slusher’s reference to the missing mass needed to keep adequate grounds for the continuation of the spirals in galaxies at such an age as is often postulated, is validated. Empirically, their continued structural form is adverse to the concept of great age. Why have they not drifted apart, like the Little Girls in Blue, in the old song! What hindered them in this uniformitarian grave-yard of the imagination of man nature-worshippers and naïve dreamers ? Thus, new research does not find the ‘dark matter’ which, it was assumed, would appear in vast quantities within the enormous stellar congregations, sufficient to account for these - to some - incredibly youthful seeming galaxies, as a cohesive force.

Like the missing link, what is missing is the crucial verification of thought. Things fail to move astronomically or biologically as man would like to move them. After all, man did not make them move; and what did, it is best to relate to what is found and what is adequate ground, rather than what is merely imagined, with evidence at rest or on vacation, like Baal in Elijah’s day. That too was a nature-worshipping religion. You might as well pay in for the week, with an imagined cheque from an imagined week of toil. You could write it out; it is just that the value would not be there.

Noted also in this issue, is a report in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Crézé, M., Chereul, E., Bienaymé, O. and Pichon, C., 1998, in 329.920-936 of that magazine). Making a motion of an aggregate of stars, they were able to "analyse the gravitational pull dragging them back towards the galactic disk." The "local dynamical density was much less than former calculations had suggested, and was contrary to any concept of ‘disk shaped component of dark matter’ ". Further research by Honc—Anh Pham of the Paris Observatory (Ph.D. thesis) analysed the motion of 10,000 stars in the Milky Way disk, reaching a result concordant with the above.

"These studies," she declared, "confirm that the dark matter {presumed to be } associated with the galactic disc in fact doesn’t exist." ( The reference: Hellemans, A., 1997, Galactic Disc contains no dark matter, Science 278:1230.)

To revert to the Astronomy and Astrophysics article noted above, it is fascinating and instructive to note that the team, after "analysing the distribution of motion for 100 stars" were able to proceed to "analyze the gravitational pull dragging them back towards the galactic disk. "In this way," says the report from Oard and Sarfati, the researchers could "deduce the gravitational mass that is

'practically hypothesis-free and model-free' "

(this last phrase being cited from the researchers themselves).

It is this phenomenon which is arresting. All throughout these assiduous efforts of many to replace observational fact with hypothetical figments, routinely dismissed in due course, like some great delay of execution by any legal means available, there is the same result. The pleas of irrationalism, ignoring the stentorian voice of logical necessity from the first (SMR Chs. 1-3, 10), as scientific method in much at the last (in uniformitarianism assumptions -cf. That Magnificent Rock. Chs. 1, 8), find only fall and gravel rash, not floating experiences in the spatial and spacious roamings of the mind.

When, however, we look in verification of logical necessity, what is continually found! Here the FACT and the OBVIOUS indicate NO NEED for the assumptions of uniformitarianism, which NEEDS some dark matter, or some black holes to help the universe to outface its multi-faceted and continually attested (relative) youth. These things are not proposed since they are contrary to specification, just as they continually become contrary to observation. Nothing has to fail, for it being unneeded, has no place for being presented, that it might fall. It is desperation which invents the imaginary, only to be defeated in its own provocation. Imagination, it is good, in a good cause; but not in prevarication or procrastination from the joint testimony of reason and the revelation of truth.

Identified as the word of God, the Bible indicates relative youth in the universe, to which all things point, from which nothing consistent and rational in its coherence, in any thing stands. Hypothesis on hypothesis, as Dr Thompson so well pointed out in his own field, versus the biological uniformitarianism, are in fragile, unstable and ineffectual layers. They do not stand. This is because they CANNOT stand, for reason rejects their bases, and observation rejects their implications. They are forever surreptitiously supposing order and structure and causality and at the same time, dismissing them in form of expression, in a very boxing match of reeling self-contradiction. It is a merry-go-round of great sadness, deluding many; who, however, in much, ignoring the necessities, ask for it.

Thus as Slusher points out in Age of the Cosmos p. 13, 'black holes' have been calculated to be needed, if they are to aid the non-disorder of galaxies, and their persistent continuance, in a special way. This gravitational model is not a free one. They would need to be "distributed as a common constituent of inter-galactic space". In the hundreds of thousands such holes would be needed. Further, as Paul Ackerman relays in his It's a Young World After All, p. 69-70, their net effect in such multitude is to be dispersive, to 'eat up' galactic material, not to enhance order and uniformity. In reality, this would merely be ONE MORE of the dispersive, disruptive forces at work on the comparative uniformity and indeed beauty, of galaxies (Slusher op. cit. p. 16). But it is not these things only, for a black hole MODEL to account for coherence and beauty of form in a chaos of theory, which is in view as the problem. There is more to face for any such model, looking for a black hole structure in its orderly if imaginary existence as a 'glue', albeit in order, a rampantly dispersive one! There is another and fateful difficulty, one which Dr Slusher does not omit in dealing with this needed dispersed arsenal of 'black holes. It is simply this: "There is no evidence for that."

Doubtless this is one of the reasons why the hope in dark matter has been thrust for so long, as the glue; and why the reaction of negativity or disillusion appears, as cited in the article of Oard and Safari, on finding it non-available in our Milky Way, on the basis of careful analysis. (They cite from Science, 281:332-333... 'bad news for astronomers who thought they finally had an answer to the puzzle of what could be holding galaxies together' .)

What! yet ONE MORE hope dashed! Et tu, dark matter! if one may adapt from Caesar's fateful remark to the assassin's hand of Brutus, his 'friend', in Shakespeare's rendition. In fact, this quoted negative reaction of frustration is exceedingly similar to that noted above, re the structure of galactic matter, from Nottingham University. That occasion, one recalls, was from revelation of observation from the Hubble Telescope. There is little more upsetting to obstinate theories than unco-operative facts.

It is the same with short term comets. Slusher discusses with a beautiful and concise precision, the possibilities surveyed for their ... origin, a model hypothesis, here, there, and finds no rest for thought. Nothing meets the considerations of the current geometry in comets, from such bases (op. cit. pp. 43ff.). Ah but the very idea of a young universe with its young fragments, processes and results, this is intolerable! so go the mental engineers in their tirades. Hence insoluble 'problems'. What is indicated MUST not be; why it implies CAN not be. Some problem!

Indeed the necessary beginning; the necessary order - it has to be there, in order to be dispersible; the necessary spirals still quite lacy; the actual order imposed beyond all expectation in cosmic walls near 'the beginning' where of course they are especially theoretically unwelcome; wrong, ludicrous or conflicting relative ages and 'miracles' of preserved antiquity (cf. SMR p. 77, 241, Creation Technical Journal Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 3ff., and above), on the one hand, and the second law of thermodynamics on the other: these things are as alike as two peas - one of granite, the size of a mountain, and the other of vegetable origin, and rotten. (Cf. Wake Up World, Your Creator is Coming… Chs. 4, 5, 6, Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 2, and Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital MilleniumCh