Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Possible water on Mars- another laugh-a-thon


Lujendra Ojha, a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology, turned to an instrument on the orbiter that identifies types of molecules by which colors of light they absorb. But this instrument, a spectrometer, is not as sharp as the camera, making it hard to zoom in on readings from the narrow streaks, a few yards across at most.

“We had to come up with new techniques and novel ways to do analysis of the chemical signature,” said Mr. Ojha, the lead author of the Nature Geoscience article.

The researchers were able to identify the telltale sign of a hydrated salt at four locations. In addition, the signs of the salt disappeared when the streaks faded. “It’s very definitive there is some sort of liquid water,” Mr. Ojha said.

The perchlorate salts lower the freezing temperature, and the water remains liquid. The average temperature of Mars is about minus 70 degrees Fahrenheit, but summer days near the Equator can reach an almost balmy 70.

Many mysteries remain. For one, scientists do not know where the water is coming from.


We had to come up with new techniques and novel ways to do analysis of the chemical signature,”   That sounds great doesn’t it. Do you know what it means? It means they jerry-rigged some processes which they had not previously tested properly so that they would have the baseline data necessary to calibrate the plus or minus of what they were hoping to figure out.

The researchers were able to identify the telltale sign of a hydrated salt at four locations


Unless NASA has reversed the image, it looks more like gullies than it does raised areas of hydrated salts, although near the end of them they do look raised. When you see the larger picture, it appears that the gullies are going down a gentle slope. So one has to wonder if they were caused by rocks that rolled down the hill leaving a groove and the rocks at the bottom were covered by sand storms. However, why weren’t the groves filled in? If the perchlorate salts were left ater the so-called water evaporated or froze, then why didn’t the salts show in the groves and only at the bottom? See, I can come up with at least one-half dozen other theories (all based upon previous guesstimates from NASA and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA. Pay attention that may become important a little later on).

Next step is the temperature, which has been documented for years. From this website: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2681.html

The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to -200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.

The temperatures on the two Viking Landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.

In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C (41 F) and the coldest is -15 (5 F) Celsius in the Guisev Crater.

Notice the graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology changes the concept of the temperature range to be more convenient for his theory.

So how does one compare something from one planet to a similar thing on another planet without being there? http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Sibling_Rivalry.html Not that NASA has any prejudice involved in this situation.

Size of mars vs earth

The similarities are striking. Each planet has roughly the same amount of land surface area.” Well, yes. But Mars is smaller and is all surface and Earth is 1/3 surface the rest water. “Atmospheric chemistry is relatively similar, at least as Earth is compared to the other planets in the solar system.” Compared to the other 7 planets, one of which is frozen solid (Pluto), one is completely obscured with gaseous clouds (Saturn), etc., etc. so it is probably somewhat similar. From Wikipedia, “The Martian atmosphere consists of approximately 96% carbon dioxide, 1.9% argon, 1.9% nitrogen, and traces of free oxygen, carbon monoxide, water and methane, among other gases.” Earth’s atmosphere “By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.” I don’t know about you but it seems considerably different

The neighbors also present strong historic evidence of changes in climate.” We have been accurately measuring the Earth’s climate for about 60 years, and we guess about everything that might have happened we believe in the past. I wonder how many tornados, hurricanes, floods that they have measured on Mars. We know they have sandstorms, but does it rain after them as it does on the ones on Earth?

Now let us get a little into the political ramifications of this. What you say, how can science be political? Well obviously you haven’t been reading my blogs lately.”





For just a small sample of the bias and cheating in the peer review process. So back to the political attacks coming. Here is what Rush Limbaugh discussed”


Radio host Rush Limbaugh came down hard Monday on NASA’s claim of finding water on Mars, stating that the dubious science would be used to promote the climate change agenda here on Earth.

Limbaugh read from a U.S. News & World Report article on the finding, saying, “quote, ‘Eons ago, ancient Mars had “an extensive atmosphere,” along with “an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and a mile deep,” said Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA said during a press conference on Monday.’

“Okay, now, look, how do they know that?” he said.

“How do they know that there was an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and that it was a mile deep? We haven’t been there. We haven’t probed a mile down on Mars.”

Limbaugh warned his audience to “realize all this stuff is not based on any data whatsoever. It’s all based on computer models predicting things.

“This guy, Mr. Green, Jim Green at NASA, may be a perfectly nice guy, but, I’m sorry, the days where I listen to some scientist come out and say, ‘Yeah, two-thirds of Mars used to be covered with water and it was a mile deep,’ because what comes next, he’s the director of planetary science at NASA, and he said, ‘After an unknown catastrophe, “Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.”‘”
Limbaugh then asserted that Green’s words slide easily into the climate change cause back on the home planet.

“Now, doesn’t that fit amazingly well with the scaremongering they are engaging in about planet Earth?” he said.

“Was it Mars’ version of Hurricane Katrina, do you think? Was there a President Bush on Mars at the time? … I’m not joking here. I’m really serious about this. An unknown catastrophe, unknown. How do we know that? If we’re gonna admit that it was an unknown catastrophe, how in the name of Sam Hill do we know what it was and that it was brought on by climate change?

“Yes siree bob, that’s what it was, folks. After an unknown catastrophe, Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.” Limbaugh referenced a 2007 National Geographic article that claimed the sun was to blame for climate change on Mars.

“In 2007, February 28, National Geographic, ‘Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.’ This is National Geographic eight years ago saying that data that we had collected on Mars now tends to indicate that it’s the sun, and not man, that’s causing changes on earth. Do you think anybody today is gonna go back and revisit that story in light of the discovery of flowing water on Mars?


“Sorry, folks, I’m not buying any of it. The evidence suggests that you shouldn’t either….

“I think this is – word for this – not ‘criminal.’ But this is dangerously incompetent. This is the attempted manipulation of people. To me this is hideous, to try to make something like this certain without doubt. ”
This is what Media Matters reported:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: “There’s so much fraud. Snerdly came in today ‘what’s this NASA news, this NASA news is all exciting.’ I said yeah they found flowing water up there. ‘No kidding! Wow! Wow!’ Snerdly said ‘flowing water!?’ I said ‘why does that excite you? What, are you going there next week? What’s the big deal about flowing water on Mars?’ ‘I don’t know man but it’s just it’s just wow!’ I said ‘you know what, when they start selling iPhones on Mars, that’s when it’ll matter to me.’ I said ‘what do you think they’re gonna do with this news?’ I said ‘look at the temperature data, that has been reported by NASA, has been made up, it’s fraudulent for however many years, there isn’t any warming, there hasn’t been for 18.5 years. And yet, they’re lying about it. They’re just making up the amount of ice in the North and South Poles, they’re making up the temperatures, they’re lying and making up false charts and so forth. So what’s to stop them from making up something that happened on Mars that will help advance their left-wing agenda on this planet?’ And Snerdly paused ‘oh oh yeah you’re right.’ You know, when I play golf with excellent golfers, I ask them ‘does it ever get boring playing well? Does it ever get boring hitting shot after shot where you want to hit it?’ And they all look at me and smile and say ‘never.’ Well folks, it never gets boring being right either. Like I am. But it doesn’t mean it is any less frustrating. Being right and being alone is a challenging existence. OK so there’s flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. You know me, I’m science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I’m all in. But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they’re going to tell us. OK, flowing water on Mars. If we’re even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That’s what I’m going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let’s just wait and see, this is September 28, let’s just wait and see. Don’t know how long it’s going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don’t know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming and you can — maybe there was once an advanced civilization. If they say they found flowing water, next they’re going to find a graveyard.”


http://www.mediamatters.org/video/2015/09/28/after-nasa-announces-it-found-water-on-mars-rus/205820   This was the banter before he actually got into the further discussion listed above from NewsMax.  Convenient they cut out the important part, but what do you expect from MediaMatters.org a George Soros left wing funded group. And as usual the other lap-dog media outlets, took the Media Matters story as gospel and ran with it to try to discredit the conservative side of American politics as being stupid and lazy. Now that seems to me to be what’s wrong with the lap-dog media because all they had to do was look up the discussion on Rush’s web site where the entire program everyday is provided in transcript form for free for everyone to read WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

From his response on Tuesday: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/29/what_i_really_think_about_mars

“So yesterday we have this big announcement that they’ve found flowing water on Mars and that two-thirds of the planet used to be an ocean, two-thirds of the northern hemisphere used to be an ocean, it was a mile deep.  I raised a question.  How do we know this?  Have we probed a mile deep?  We know that there’s always been water on Mars because they have ice caps on the poles.  So it’s not news that there’s water.  That’s why they said free flowing water.  But that wasn’t the big deal.  The big deal was that some scientist — and it was important to call the guy a scientist — some scientist said that a catastrophic event probably related to climate change on Mars, resulted in this. “

And continued, “I’m sorry, folks, but that’s not science, and that’s not even a good wild guess.  How can there be a catastrophic event on Mars when there is nobody there to experience the catastrophe?  How can there be a catastrophe on Mars when we can’t even prove it?  All we can do is wild guess it?  And the very fact that my objection to this is being noted is proof positive that there is an agenda attached to this, otherwise they would leave my comments alone. “

Remember I said the JPL is close to Hollywood?

“This is from Yahoo News, even, the Millennial news network. “Did NASA Time its Mars Announcement to Coincide with ‘The Martian’?” a movie starring Matt Damon. “

“NASA’s announcement confirming that it found evidence of water flowing on the surface Mars,” not now, but many, many moons ago, or I should perhaps say many, many Marss ago,  “was celebrated by scientists searching for life in the universe — and by publicists at 20th Century Fox looking to promote ‘The Martian,’ the upcoming Ridley Scott film starring Matt Damon. In the film, Damon plays Mark Watney, an astronaut who must survive alone on Mars after being left for dead by his crew during a fierce storm on the red planet.”

“NASA wants to go to Mars, and Obama’s turned NASA over to Muslim outreach, in case you’ve forgotten.  NASA wants the money to go to Mars.  It makes total sense in the world that they would time, NASA, the release of, “Look what we found! We found flowing water on Mars, oh, my God, there could be life…”

You need to remember that NASA was converted to Muslim outreach by Obama. It was one of the first things he did when he assumed office in 2009 to convert NASA’s budget and then use that money for Muslim outreach.


Therefore, it starts to make sense now, doesn’t it? The final decision that this hydrated salt meant there was running water on Mars was made months ago, but the announcement was delayed to coincide with the release of the movie, to get some rollover effects for NASA to stir hope for an increase in their budget.

Besides, if a “scientist” is going to get up in front of the world and claim that there was a mile deep ocean on Mars and some “unknown catastrophic” event occurred to eliminate the water, then, please show how you come to that conclusion with the facts that are available to all of us. I don’t want your so-called “considered opinion”, I want facts, not wild hypothesis.Possi

Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Human Origins-Evillution or nothing

If you want a good laugh, then reading the books put out by the evolutionary biologists is an absolute hoot. What they have concocted to try to prove their point of views will make you fall out of your chair and laugh.

There are other, more inclusive, ideas around about what makes us human. Not long ago, most people (in the west) were happy with the account found in the Bible: we are made in the image of God – end of argument. However, the theory of evolution tells a different story, one in which humans slowly emerged as a twig on the tree of life. The problem with this explanation is that it is much more difficult to say exactly what makes us so different from all the other twigs.


That is what it means when we say that Darwinian evolution is an overarching explanation: It can explain everything and anything — and in the end nothing — and still be the accepted and defended explanation. To doubt is to invite intellectual rejection.

Some scientists have concluded that there simply is no profound difference between us and other species. This is the stance taken in new books by Henry Gee, paleontology editor of the leading scientific journal Nature, and by animal behavior expert Marc Bekoff.

accidental species

There are no obvious physical features to explain our successes over other animals in the kingdom according to these authors. Such useful below-the-neck traits as bipedalism and opposable thumbs are too widespread. Moreover, just pointing to our large brains will not work: they might be three times the size of the brains of chimpanzees but elephants’ brains are three times bigger again. Of course, elephants have bigger bodies too, leading some to think that we might have the highest ratio of brain size to body size. Not quite, that honor actually belongs to shrews and ants.


From the evillutionists point of view, with enough tweaking, a scale can be developed according to which humans we want to come out as the brainiest. However, the real lesson we might draw from this is how desperate humans are to demonstrate that they are special, and how hard this is to do with any exactness.

For Gee, this would appear to show that our obsession with our uniqueness is a folly. “There is nothing special about being human, any more than there is anything special about being a guinea pig or a geranium,” he writes in his book The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution. We only believe we are so exceptional, he argues, because we believe that we are the pinnacle of evolution. However, this is our misunderstanding: we are just one twig on the tree of life, and we could have easily been snapped off at any time.

Gee is good at explaining how fossil evidence has been (mis)interpreted to fit that famous picture of man rising from the ape, growing taller and wiser with each step before culminating in us. The reality, he points out, is very different: until recently (no later than 50,000 years ago) there were many species of humans across the world. Homo sapiens would have appeared much less exceptional, and our close connection to other species more obvious. Some of these other humans disappeared through natural disasters whereas others might have been driven to extinction by us. Therefore, if our twig stands out, it might be only because we have ruthlessly pruned the rest of the branch.


This would fit with the biologist Marc Bekoff’s view of modern humans. What sets us apart, he argues, is that “we’re the only animals who cook food, and no other species is as destructive of its own and other species”. His latest work Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship and Conservation is a collection of his blog posts and essays.

Bekoff’s starting position is what he calls the principle of evolutionary continuity. He writes, we claimed to be the only species with reason, emotion, consciousness or morality. However, according to his beliefs, we share a long evolutionary history and basic biology with other animals, particularly other mammals. We should therefore expect that “if some mammals experience something, most or all mammals probably do, too.” It would be simply unscientific to expect one twig on the tree of life to be radically different from those on the branches around it.

Bekoff’s central claim – that we are far from standing out as the only complex thinking creatures on earth – is now much less controversial than it was just a few decades ago.

Carrying that thinking to its logical extreme, then the 11,500-year-old religious complex Gobekli Tepe[1], described by one source as like “a 747 built in the basement with an X-Acto knife,” must be a subset or outgrowth of the activities of primates like chimpanzees and bonobos.” Barbara J. King explains at NPR that human religiosity: “was primed by the meaning-making, imagination, empathy and rule-following of other primates (primates with whom we shared a common ancestor in the past or those common ancestors themselves).”[2] The immense complex, which predates Stonehenge by about seven thousand years, has cast doubt on the conventional view that agriculture produced cities, suggesting instead that religion did. Other primates never built such a thing, or built anything but housing such as underground tunnels, nests, beaver dams, etc. However, it must somehow be accounted for because of our kinship with them.


The fact that such claims explain nothing about the world around us and fly in the face of evidence and common sense is not treated as a serious objection. That is what it means when I have said in the past, that Darwinian evolution is an unsubstantiated explanation: It can explain everything and anything — and in the end nothing — and still be the accepted and defended explanation. To doubt is to invite intellectual rejection.

One result is that numerous trivial and often contradictory accounts of our existence are the only ones on offer: Human evolution, we are told, began in a genetic coding error (a doubling error[3]) half a billion years ago.


An amphioxus, which is a very distant cousin to humans and other vertebrates. It is the creature most similar to the original spineless organism that existed before a major genomic event occurred.

Or maybe, human specific regulation of neuronal genes.[4].


On the other hand, how about just plain novel genes are what set us apart[5].

chimps looking at each other

Some think that, humans evolved to “outrun the fastest animals on earth[6].” Or parasites made us what we are[7]. One group of “specialists” informs us that men evolved sturdier features due to fighting over women[8].


We had to learn to walk upright to be able to hit each other since we apparently had gotten beyond biting each other[9]. Walking upright, formally called bipedalism. There is a “uniquely human[10]” way of walking upright and there is no shortage of possible reasons why: carrying infants.

Scarce resources?


Saving evergy?[11]


Or let us get into the 21st century- maybe it is due to climate change.[12]


Or maybe it was due to rough terrain?[13]


The human hand is simply a byproduct of changes to the shape of our feet[14].

foot and hand

Did stone tools really change human hands? Darwin speculated on this, which makes the idea sacred today.[15]


While many claim that apes use and shape tools[16] like humans, few speculate why doing so had no such dramatic effect on their hands.


Chimpanzees’ improved skills throwing excrement[17] are also said to provide hints about human brain development.


Collective intelligence[18] (“ideas having sex”), whatever that means, has been really important to human evolution as well.


Consciousness is a state of matter, like gases[19].



The problems with all of these disunited and discordant theses can be summed up for convenience as: 1) If some aspect of chimpanzee behavior explains something that happened to us, why didn’t it produce the same result in chimpanzees? 2) If mere advantage (which every primate seeks) explains a development like the human mind, why did only humans experience it?


[1] Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text/1

[2] But religiosity is found in every human culture and biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists keenly debate how it arose. Just like language, technology and bipedalism, religion too evolved over time.


[3] Over 500 million years ago a spineless creature on the ocean floor experienced two successive doublings in the amount of its DNA, a “mistake” that eventually triggered the evolution of humans and many other animals, says a new study.


[4] A new study has identified hundreds of small regions of the genome that appear to be uniquely regulated in human neurons. These regulatory differences distinguish us from other primates, including monkeys and apes, and as neurons are at the core of our unique cognitive abilities, these features may ultimately hold the key to our intellectual prowess (and also to our potential vulnerability to a wide range of ‘human-specific’ diseases from autism to Alzheimer’s) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121120194926.htm

[5] On the plains of New Mexico, a band of elite marathoners tests a controversial theory of evolution: that humans can outrun the fastest animals on earth.


[6] On the plains of New Mexico, a band of elite marathoners tests a controversial theory of evolution: that humans can outrun the fastest animals on earth.


[7] The degree to which natural selection is primarily driven by adaptation to local environments, and the role of pathogens or other ecological factors as selective agents, is still under debate http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002355

[8] Men evolved manly jawlines and thick brows because they used to fight for women in the past, claim anthropologists


[9] A new study shows that men hit harder when they stand on two legs than when they are on all fours, and when hitting downward rather than upward, giving tall, upright males a fighting advantage. This may help explain why our ape-like human ancestors began walking upright and why women tend to prefer tall men. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518171343.htm

[10] A new study has found that a 9- to 7-million-year-old ape from Italy did not, in fact, walk habitually on two legs. The findings refute a long body of evidence, suggesting that Oreopithecus had the capabilities for bipedal (moving on two legs) walking http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130725125447.htm

[11] A pair of researchers have developed a model that suggests shuffling emerged millions of years ago as a precursor to walking on two feet as a way of saving metabolic energy by a common ancestor of today’s primates. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529140042.htm

[12] http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ascent_man_why_did_our_early_ancestors_walk_upright-113043

[13] Hominins, our early forebears, would have been attracted to the terrain of rocky outcrops and gorges because it offered shelter and opportunities to trap prey. But it also required more upright scrambling and climbing gaits, prompting the emergence of bipedalism http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130524104041.htm

[14] The journal Evolution reports that changes in our hands and fingers were a side-effect of changes in the shape of our feet. This, they say, shows that the capacity to stand and walk on two feet is intrinsically linked to the emergence of stone tool technology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8459572.stm

[15] New research from anthropologists at the University of Kent has confirmed Charles Darwin’s speculation that the evolution of unique features in the human hand was influenced by increased tool use in our ancestors. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110307101504.htm

[16] In 1960, at Gombe National Park, Jane observed two chimps pick up small twigs, strip off the leaves, and use them as tools to fish for termites in the ground, which they then swept into their mouths as a snack. http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-tool-use.php

[17]Hopkins and colleagues tracked several years’ worth of throwing behaviors in captive chimpanzees. (“If I was going to get s**t thrown at me, I was going to get something out of it,” said Hopkins.) Chimps are the closest living relative to humans, and the only species aside from ourselves in which throwing is regularly seen. http://www.wired.com/2011/11/chimp-throwing/

[18] The Darwinian process by which creatures change depends crucially on sexual reproduction, which brings together mutations from different lineages. Without sex, the best mutations defeat the second best, which then get lost to posterity. http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703691804575254533386933138?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703691804575254533386933138.html

[19] Tegmark’s approach is to think of consciousness as a state of matter, like a solid, a liquid or a gas. “I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,” he says. He goes on to show how the particular properties of consciousness might arise from the physical laws that govern our universe. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-physicists-are-saying-consciousness-is-a-state-of-matter-like-a-solid-a-liquid-or-a-gas-5e7ed624986d

Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Mathematics- you either hated it or loved it in school

Mathematics- you either hated it or loved it in school.   “1+1=2” is a given, we know it to always be true. Except it is not! There are actually instances of where “1+1=1” and an entire field of mathematics has been developed to prove this paradox. I was asked if there was a Biblical reason for mathematics and yes, of course there is. Without an orderly, intelligently designed world, there would be no use for mathematics. Therefore, in this article we will discuss the philosophy of numbers, the practical application of mathematics and the Biblical foundation for all of it.


Mathematics has been defined as “the study of relationships among quantities, magnitudes and properties, and also of the logical operations by which unknown quantities, magnitudes, and properties may be deduced” (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia) or more simply “the study of quantity, structure, space and change” (Wikipedia).

Historically, mathematics was regarded as the science of quantity, whether of magnitudes (as in geometry) or of numbers (as in arithmetic) or of the generalization of these two fields (as in algebra). Some have seen it in terms as simple as a search for patterns.

All that we know of the universe around us (except for the understanding of living things) is a result of the accurate application of mathematics. Knowledgeable people have used mathematics to try to explain the variance in behavior of living things, but to no avail.

We will first explore mathematics itself, its development from simple counting of objects to abstract hypothesis dealing with generalities instead of specifics (fuzzy logic). Then we will deal with how the knowledge of mathematics helps us to identify the one and only Intelligent Designer of the universe and all that is in it- God Himself.

I will be approaching the subject from both the fallible and incorrect evolutionary perspective of millions of years (MYA) and the (Biblical perspective) until I can merge them both into an agreeable timeline for both.


Our ancestors (Adam and Eve) would have had a general sensibility about amounts, and would have instinctively known the difference between, say, one and two wooly mammoths. The intellectual leap from the concrete idea of two things to the invention of a symbol or word for the abstract idea of “two” might have taken some time.

Early Babylonian and Egyptian records and the Hebrew Bible indicate that length was first measured with the forearm, hand, or finger and that time was measured by the periods of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies. When it was necessary to compare the capacities of containers such as gourds or clay or metal vessels, they were filled with plant seeds (I hope they were not using mustard seeds) which were then counted to measure the volumes. So here we have length (or distances), time, and volume. The only critical measurement missing at this point in time is mass or weight. Now, I am sure that they knew that a chicken egg was not as heavy as a cow, but they just did not have a particular method to measure the difference at first.


Early man (Adam and Eve after the Fall) kept track of regular occurrences such as the phases of the moon and the seasons. Some of the very earliest evidence of the thinking about numbers is from notched bones in Africa (supposedly dating back to 35,000 to 20,000 years ago). However, we have no actual idea that this was what was actually being done- nobody was there). It is simple counting and tallying rather than mathematics as such.


Sumer (a region of Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq) was the birthplace of writing, the wheel, agriculture, the arch, the plow, irrigation and many other innovations, and it is often referred to as the ‘Cradle of Civilization’. The Sumerians developed the earliest known writing system – a pictographic writing system known as cuneiform script, using wedge-shaped characters inscribed on baked clay tablets – and this has meant that we actually have more knowledge of ancient Sumerian and Babylonian mathematics than of early Egyptian mathematics


Sumerian mathematics initially developed largely as a response to bureaucratic needs when their civilization settled and developed agriculture (possibly as early as the 6th millennium BC) for the measurement of plots of land, the taxation of individuals, etc. In addition, the Sumerians and Babylonians needed to describe quite large numbers as they attempted to chart the course of the night sky and develop their sophisticated lunar calendar

Sumerian and Babylonian mathematics was based on a sexegesimal, or base 60, numeric system, which could be counted physically using the twelve knuckles on one hand and the five fingers on the other hand. I do no know about you but it certainly seemed like from high school through my college math classes every one of the instructors would have us to a set of problems in our typical base10 and then make us resolve the problems in either base12 or base60. Cruel I called them and useless was the exercise.

It has been conjectured that Babylonian advances in mathematics were probably facilitated by the fact that 60 has many divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 and 60 – in fact, 60 is the smallest integer divisible by all integers from 1 to 6), and the continued modern-day usage of 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 360 (60 x 6) degrees in a circle, are all testaments to the ancient Babylonian system. It is for similar reasons that 12 (which has factors of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6) has been such a popular multiple historically (e.g. 12 months, 12 inches, 12 pence, 2 x 12 hours, etc).

The Babylonians also developed another revolutionary mathematical concept, something else that the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans did not have, a circle character for zero, although its symbol was really still more of a placeholder than a number in its own right.


The early Egyptians settled along the fertile Nile valley as early as about 6000 BC, and they began to record the patterns of lunar phases and the seasons, both for agricultural and religious reasons. The Pharaoh’s surveyors used measurements based on body parts (a palm was the width of the hand, a cubit the measurement from elbow to fingertips) to measure land and buildings very early in Egyptian history, and a decimal numeric system was developed based on our ten fingers.

The Rhind Papyrus, dating from around 1650 BC, is a kind of instruction manual in arithmetic and geometry, and it gives us explicit demonstrations of how multiplication and division was carried out at that time. It also contains evidence of other mathematical knowledge, including unit fractions, composite and prime numbers, arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means, and how to solve first order linear equations as well as arithmetic and geometric series. The Berlin Papyrus, which dates from around 1300 BC, shows that ancient Egyptians could solve second-order algebraic (quadratic) equations.

It is thought that the Egyptians introduced the earliest fully-developed base 10 numeration system at least as early as 2700 BC (and probably much early). Written numbers used a stroke for units, a heel-bone symbol for tens, a coil of rope for hundreds and a lotus plant for thousands, as well as other hieroglyphic symbols for higher powers of ten up to a million. However, there was no concept of place value, so larger numbers were rather unwieldy


Practical problems of trade and the market led to the development of a notation for fractions. The papyri which have come down to us demonstrate the use of unit fractions based on the symbol of the Eye of Horus, where each part of the eye represented a different fraction, each half of the previous one (i.e. half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, thirty-second, sixty-fourth), so that the total was one-sixty-fourth short of a whole, the first known example of a geometric series.


As the Greek empire began to spread its sphere of influence into Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and beyond, the Greeks were smart enough to adopt and adapt useful elements from the societies they conquered. This was as true of their mathematics as anything else, and they adopted elements of mathematics from both the Babylonians and the Egyptians. But they soon started to make important contributions in their own right and, for the first time, we can acknowledge contributions by individuals

The ancient Greek numeral system, known as Attic or Herodianic numerals, was fully developed by about 450 BC, and in regular use possibly as early as the 7th Century BC. It was a base 10 system similar to the earlier Egyptian one (and even more similar to the later Roman system), with symbols for 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1,000 repeated as many times needed to represent the desired number. Addition was done by totaling separately the symbols (1s, 10s, 100s, etc) in the numbers to be added, and multiplication was a laborious process based on successive doublings (division was based on the inverse of this process).

To some extent, however, the legend of the

6th Century BC mathematician Pythagoras of Samos has become synonymous with the birth of Greek mathematics. Indeed, he is believed to have coined both the words “philosophy” (“love of wisdom”) and “mathematics” (“that which is learned”). Pythagoras was perhaps the first to realize that a complete system of mathematics could be constructed, where geometric elements corresponded with numbers. Pythagoras’ Theorem (or the Pythagorean Theorem) is one of the best known of all mathematical theorems


Perhaps the most important single contribution of the Greeks, though – and Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle were influential in this respect – was the idea of proof, and the deductive method of using logical steps to prove or disprove theorems from initial assumed axioms. Older cultures, like the Egyptians and the Babylonians, had relied on inductive reasoning, using repeated observations to establish rules of thumb. It is this concept of proof that gives mathematics its power and ensures that proven theories are as true today as they were two thousand years ago. This laid the foundations for the systematic approach to mathematics of Euclid and those who came after him.


The over-riding dictum of Pythagoras’s school was “All is number” or “God is number”, and the Pythagoreans effectively practiced a kind of numerology or number-worship, and considered each number to have its own character and meaning. For example, the number one was the generator of all numbers; two represented opinion; three, harmony; four, justice; five, marriage; six, creation; seven, the seven planets or “wandering stars”; etc. Odd numbers were thought of as female and even numbers as male.

The holiest number of all was “tetractys” or ten, a triangular number composed of the sum of one, two, three and four. It is a great tribute to the Pythagoreans’ intellectual achievements that they deduced the special place of the number 10 from an abstract mathematical argument rather than from something as mundane as counting the fingers on two hands.


However, Pythagoras and his school – as well as a handful of other mathematicians of ancient Greece – was largely responsible for introducing a more rigorous mathematics than what had gone before, building from first principles using axioms and logic. Before Pythagoras, for example, geometry had been merely a collection of rules derived by empirical measurement. Pythagoras discovered that a complete system of mathematics could be constructed, where geometric elements corresponded with numbers, and where integers and their ratios were all that was necessary to establish an entire system of logic and truth.

He is mainly remembered for what has become known as Pythagoras’ Theorem (or the Pythagorean Theorem): that, for any right-angled triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse (the longest side, opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides (or “legs”). Written as an equation: a2 + b2 = c2. What Pythagoras and his followers did not realize is that this also works for any shape: thus, the area of a pentagon on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the pentagons on the other two sides, as it does for a semi-circle or any other regular (or even irregular) shape.


Although usually remembered today as a philosopher, Plato was also one of ancient Greece’s most important patrons of mathematics. Inspired by Pythagoras, he founded his Academy in Athens in 387 BC, where he stressed mathematics as a way of understanding more about reality. In particular, he was convinced that geometry was the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe. The sign above the Academy entrance read: “Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here”

He demanded of his students accurate definitions, clearly stated assumptions, and logical deductive proof, and he insisted that geometric proofs be demonstrated with no aids other than a straight edge and a compass. Plato the mathematician is perhaps best known for his identification of 5 regular symmetrical 3-dimensional shapes, which he maintained were the basis for the whole universe, and which have become known as the Platonic Solids: the tetrahedron (constructed of 4 regular triangles, and which for Plato represented fire), the octahedron (composed of 8 triangles, representing air), the icosahedron (composed of 20 triangles, and representing water), the cube (composed of 6 squares, and representing earth), and the dodecahedron (made up of 12 pentagons, which Plato obscurely described as “the god used for arranging the constellations on the whole heaven”).



Alexandria in Egypt became a great centre of learning under the beneficent rule of the Ptolemies, and its famous Library soon gained a reputation to rival that of the Athenian Academy. The patrons of the Library were arguably the first professional scientists, paid for their devotion to research. Among the best known and most influential mathematicians who studied and taught at Alexandria were Euclid, and Archimedes.

During the late 4th and early 3rd Century BC, Euclid was the great chronicler of the mathematics of the time, and one of the most influential teachers in history. He virtually invented classical (Euclidean) geometry as we know it. Archimedes studied for a while in Alexandria. He is perhaps best known as an engineer and inventor but, in the light of recent discoveries, he is now considered of one of the greatest pure mathematicians of all time. A mathematician, astronomer and geographer, he devised the first system of latitude and longitude, and calculated the circumference of the earth to a remarkable degree of accuracy. .


The simple but efficient ancient Chinese numbering system, which dates back to at least the 2nd millennium BC, used small bamboo rods arranged to represent the numbers 1 to 9, which were then places in columns representing units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. It was therefore a decimal place value system, very similar to the one we use today – indeed it was the first such number system, adopted by the Chinese over a thousand years before it was adopted in the West – and it made even quite complex calculations very quick and easy.

The use of the abacus is often thought of as a Chinese idea, although some type of abacus was in use in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece, probably much earlier than in China. There was a pervasive fascination with numbers and mathematical patterns in ancient China, and different numbers were believed to have cosmic significance. The main thrust of Chinese mathematics developed in response to the empire’s growing need for mathematically competent administrators. It was particularly important to the Chinese to solve equations – the deduction of an unknown number from other known information – using a sophisticated matrix-based method which did not appear in the West until Carl Friedrich Gauss re-discovered it at the beginning of the 19th Century.


Not North American Indians. But from the sub-continent of India.   Mantras from the early Vedic period (before 1000 BC) invoke powers of ten from a hundred all the way up to a trillion, and provide evidence of the use of arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, fractions, squares, cubes and roots. A 4th Century AD Sanskrit text reports Buddha enumerating numbers up to 1053, as well as describing six more numbering systems over and above these, leading to a number equivalent to 10421. Given that there are an estimated 1080 atoms in the whole universe, this is as close to infinity as any in the ancient world came. It also describes a series of iterations in decreasing size, in order to demonstrate the size of an atom, which comes remarkably close to the actual size of a carbon atom (about 70 trillionths of a metre). The Indians were also responsible for the earliest recorded usage of a circle character for the number zero. The brilliant conceptual leap to include zero as a number in its own right would revolutionize mathematics.



The Islamic Empire established across Persia, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Iberia and parts of India from the 8th Century onwards made significant contributions towards mathematics. They were able to draw on and fuse together the mathematical developments of both Greece and India. One important contribution was algebra, and they introduced the fundamental algebraic methods of “reduction” and “balancing” and provided an exhaustive account of solving polynomial equations up to the second degree. In this way, they helped create the powerful abstract mathematical language still used across the world today, and allowed a much more general way of analyzing problems other than just the specific problems previously considered. used mathematical induction to prove the binomial theorem. A binomial is a simple type of algebraic expression which has just two terms which are operated on only by addition, subtraction, multiplication and positive whole-number exponents, such as (x + y)2.


During the centuries in which the Chinese, Indian and Islamic mathematicians had been in the ascendancy, Europe had fallen into the Dark Ages, in which science, mathematics and almost all intellectual endeavour stagnated. Scholastic scholars only valued studies in the humanities, such as philosophy and literature, and spent much of their energies quarrelling over subtle subjects in metaphysics and theology, such as “How many angels can stand on the point of a needle?” The advent of the printing press in the mid-15th Century also had a huge impact. Numerous books on arithmetic were published for the purpose of teaching business people computational methods for their commercial needs and mathematics gradually began to acquire a more important position in education. The equals, multiplication, division, radical (root), decimal and inequality symbols were gradually introduced and standardized. The use of decimal fractions and decimal arithmetic was developed.



The invention of the logarithm in the early 17th Century by John Napier (and later improved by Napier and Henry Briggs) contributed to the advance of science, astronomy and mathematics by making some difficult calculations relatively easy. It was one of the most significant mathematical developments of the age, and 17th Century physicists like Kepler and Newton could never have performed the complex calculations needed for their innovations without it. The Frenchman René Descartes is sometimes considered the first of the modern school of mathematics. His development of analytic geometry and Cartesian coordinates in the mid-17th Century soon allowed the orbits of the planets to be plotted on a graph, as well as laying the foundations for the later development of calculus (and much later multi-dimensional geometry). Descartes is also credited with the first use of superscripts for powers or exponents.

Two other great French mathematicians were close contemporaries of Descartes: Pierre de Fermat and Blaise Pascal. Fermat formulated several theorems which greatly extended our knowledge of number theory, as well as contributing some early work on infinitesimal calculus. Pascal is most famous for Pascal’s Triangle of binomial coefficients, although similar figures had actually been produced by Chinese and Persian mathematicians long before him.

So there we have a brief summary of the major developments in mathematics that has led us to the point we are today. However we still have not discovered why or how ‘1+1=1.” Stay tuned that is coming up. People tell me that long articles need to be shortened to keep the people’s attention. I am sure that is due to Common Core and all the drugs we give hyperactive students instead of spanking them to get them to sit still.

You will notice that in the above descriptions that various belief systems or “religious” systems and philosophy played a very important part of the development of mathematics.

In their world-views, Christian and non-Christian differ at fundamental points about just about everything. Surely, (the paradox notwithstanding) the world-views cannot affect mathematics. This, finally, is a neutral area, where Christian and non-Christian can agree. Both know that 1 + 1 = 2. How could religious differences ever affect it?

The “neutrality postulate” says that the knowledge and structure of a science—for example, mathematics—is not influenced by religious belief. At least science ought not to be influenced by religious belief. To be more forthright, secularists would say true scientific knowledge remains the same whether or not God exists.

What differences have arisen in mathematics in connection with religious belief? Differences have arisen over arithmetical truth, over standards for proof, over number-theoretic truth, over geometric truth, over truths of analysis, over mathematical existence-not to mention the long-standing epistemological disputes over the source of mathematical truth.

It may surprise the reader to learn that not everyone agrees that ‘1 + 1 = 2′ is true. If with Parmenides one thinks that all is one, if with Vedantic Hinduism he thinks that all plurality is illusion, ‘1 + 1 = 2′ is an illusory statement. On the most ultimate level of being, 1 + 1 = 1. No that is not the paradox we have mentioned above- that is just some gobbledygook where the Vede’s have broken into about 7 different schools of thought , but the commonality is the ”Universal Oneness of the World.” In other words, there may be many of us but we are all one which coming from a group who cannot keep themselves together is another paradox.

What does this imply? Even the simplest arithmetical truths can be sustained only in a worldview which acknowledges an ultimate metaphysical plurality in the world—whether Trinitarian, polytheistic, or chance-produced plurality. At the same time, the simplest arithmetical truths also presuppose ultimate metaphysical unity for the world; at least sufficient unity to guard the continued existence of “sames.” Two apples remain apples while I am counting them; the symbol ‘2’ is in some sense the same symbol at different times, standing for the same number.

From the start, mathematics is plunged into the metaphysical problem of unity and plurality, of the one and the many.  Without some real unity and plurality, ‘1 + 1 = 2′ falls into limbo. The “agreement” over mathematical truth is achieved partly by the process, described elegantly by Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, of excluding from the scientific community people of differing convictions. From this process comes the raging debate between secular and Biblical scientists, both doing the same research and complementing each other’s experiments, but both ignoring the contributions of the others.

Mathematicians do not always agree about which proofs are valid. Intuitionists do not accept the proof by reductio ad absurdum (proof an assertion by deducting a contradiction from its negation).[i]  Hence they will not accept some proofs that others will accept. The differences between intuitionists and the others have religious roots in the fact that these intuitionists will not accept as meaningful an appeal to the fact that God knows the truth about the matter, whether or not we do.[ii]  For them some sense truth has its ultimate locus in the human mind. Mathematics is “only concerned with mental constructions”[iii]

The intuitionists also provide the most convenient example of how religious differences can lead to disagreement over number-theoretic truth. Consider the statements

A: Somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi there occurs a sequence of seven consecutive 7’s.

B: There are infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is prime.

No man knows whether either A or B is true. Nor is there any known procedure which, in a finite amount of time, can assure us of obtaining a definite yes-or-no answer. For the intuitionists, this means that A and B should not be considered as either true or false.[iv]  It makes no sense to talk about truth or falsehood so long as we have no way of checking. On the other hand, the Christian, on the basis of I John 3:20 (“God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything”), Psalm 147:5, and other passages, is likely to feel that at least God knows definitely whether A or B is true. Our own limitations set no limits to His knowledge (cf. Isa. 55:8-9; Ps. 139:6, 12, 17-18).

If the evolutionists believe that the universe came from multi-billions and billions of random processes, then how do they explain the natural order found in so many things around us? How do they explain the natural order of mathematics and its application to so many areas of our lives if it developed as a part of random processes?

Most modern textbooks do not even attempt to offer an explanation for addition’s existence. Throughout my schooling, not one of my textbooks ever explained where addition originated or why it works. I eventually concluded that addition, along with all other math facts, is an eternal, self-existent truth and this was while I was an atheist.

Mathematicians throughout history have developed various theories to explain the origin and consistency of addition. Some have speculated that addition exists by sheer chance. Others have claimed man created addition and addition works because man designed it to work.

The verse “For by him all things were created” (Colossians 1:16 NIV’84) tells us where addition originated. It tells us God created all things. The word all includes everything, even math. This does not mean God created the symbols 1 and 2. Man developed those symbols. However, those symbols represent a real-life principle called addition that is embedded in everything around us—a principle God created.

Throughout history, cultures have used different symbols to represent quantities. For instance, the Romans used Roman numerals (I, V, X, etc.) instead of our current Arabic system (1, 5, 10, etc.). However, man has never created anything in math. He has merely developed different symbols and systems to represent the orderly way things add. Addition originated with God.

It is important to note that not everything follows our standard rules of addition. Two water droplets, when added together, form one larger water droplet (1 + 1 = 1). There is the paradox we have mentioned before. The mathematical field of fluid mechanics was developed to help solve the many different conundrums arising from how fluids react with each other. This presents a huge problem for those who look at math as an independent fact, but makes sense when we look at math as a way of describing the principles God created and sustains. God has different, though equally consistent, principles for governing liquids than He does solids. The apparent contradiction in how liquids combine reminds us that, no matter how well we think we have things figured out, God’s laws and universe are more complex than we can imagine!

Just looking at a sunflower, we can tell that the sunflower was carefully designed by a wise Creator. Evillutionists will however, say it is was the result of billions of years of random chance changes that caused the beautiful symmetry of the flowers.

The seeds in all sunflowers–be they large or small–are arranged according to two patterns. When we use math to examine these patterns, we observe that, regardless of how many seeds the sunflower contains, the number of seeds will be distributed between the two patterns in approximately the same mathematical proportion–a proportion that enables sunflowers to hold the maximum number of seeds and reproduce quite efficiently![v]   Math, however, allows us to see God’s design at a new level, revealing the care God took with each aspect of His creation.

Seeing the amazing way God designed the sunflowers should remind us that we can trust Him to take care of the details of our lives.

First, an understanding of 3-dimensional geometry can give us perspective as we read Genesis 6:15 and Revelation 21:16. We realize the immensity of Noah’s Ark (450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high) and of the New Jerusalem (1400 miles wide, long, and high). We can also emphasize God’s precision in the blueprint for the ark and His majestic creativity in the design of the New Jerusalem.
A second example is making a simple reference to Proverbs 17:10 when introducing the study of inequalities. The writer of proverbs gives value to one reproof of a wise man that is greater than one hundred lashes to a fool. Many other examples are available, including Judges 16:30, Luke 15:7, and John 12:43.
Third, we can use a lesson on sequences as an opportunity to talk about the Fibonacci sequence. There is a 4-minute video available at http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/67897/Fibonacci_numbers___The_Fingerprint_of_God. This video portrays our God as one who values order and as one Who has repeatedly left a clear identifying mark on creation. I am amazed at how often this sequence appears.
Fourth, Jesus’ parable of the debtor from Matthew 18:21-34 can be used as an illustration of ratios, proportions, and unit conversion. Bible scholars believe that 1 talent = 75 pounds of gold (http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblestoryactivities2.htm). Then, 10000 talents = 750000 pounds of gold, which is 12000000 ounces. Recently, gold was valued at $1776 per ounce; so in today’s figures, 12000000 ounces would equal $21,312,000,000. Certainly, this parable teaches a valuable lesson on forgiving one another, but it should also remind us that God has made provision for us to be forgiven from a sin debt that we could never repay.
Finally, I would like to share some thoughts from the book Mathematics: Is God Silent?, by James Nickel (Ross House Books, 2001):
“Is there a connection between mathematics and evangelism? It has been shown that non-numerical mathematical methods such as set theory, modern abstract algebra, topology, and mathematical logic can be applied to the task of Bible translation. These mathematical formulations are powerful enough to deal with the structured relationships found in the complexity of linguistic structures.” (277-278)
We should continuously evaluate ourselves, not just in how we teach our content, but in how we link math and the Bible.


[i] Arend Heyting, “Disputation,” in Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, eds., Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 61

[ii] “The . . . point of view that there are no non-experienced truths and that logic is not an absolutely reliable instrument to discover truths, has found acceptance with regard to mathematics much later than with regard to practical life and to science” (italics mine). Luitzen E. J. Brouwer, “Consciousness, Philosophy, and Mathematics,” in Philosophy of Mathematics, p. 78. Note the correlation that Brouwer makes between “life” and “science” on the one hand (expressing a religious world-view) and mathematics on the other. Elsewhere he acknowledges his philosophical debt to Kant, “Intuitionism and Formalism,” in ibid., p. 69.

[iii] Arend Heyting, “Disputation,” in Philosophy of Mathematics, p. 61

[iv] Cf. Luitzen E. J. Brouwer, “Intuitionism and Formalism,” in ibid., p. 77, and Arend Heyting, “Disputation,” in ibid., p. 56, for intuitionistic discussion of questions similar to A and B.

[v] This proportion has been named the Fibonacci sequence and is also present in many other flowers and parts of nature. “In nature, outside influences distort this pattern somewhat–seeds are not all exactly the same size, and external forces such as pressure against other flower buds during seed development may affect the spirals. Nevertheless, math helps us see a general relationship God put into sunflowers that enables them to reproduce quite efficiently.”

Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Ahh…ahhh…ahchoo, dang Precambrian pollen

The Bible tells us that the creation of plants (including flowering plants) on Day 3 of Creation Week actually predated the creation of dinosaurs on Day 6. Unfortunately the rock strata with its variety of fossils do not follow the order generally accepted appearance of extinction over billions of years as the evolutionary paradigm would claim, instead it more closely reflects the order of burial during and since the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9; cf. Luke 17:26–27), only about 4,500 years ago. Now as usual we will not deal with the inaccuracies of the evolutionary concept of Millions of Years Ago (mya), because in this instance it helps us to point out how far wrong their thinking is.

England’s Sir Walter Raleigh, who introduced tobacco and potatoes to Europe (best known for having supposedly used his expensive cloak to cover a mud puddle to protect the feet of Queen Elizabeth 1). He was beheaded by her successor, James I (of KJV Bible fame) in 1618, but not before he had become the first European to discover South America’s Mount Roraima. Its peak, some 9,219 ft above sea level, is in Venezuela.[i]

In the 1940s and 1950s, the discovery of fossils outside the accepted evolutionary position in biostratigraphy was usually honestly reported and discussed. In the following years, examples that could not be explained were simply ignored, never being mentioned again.

Now the question is how I am going to tie the three topics above into a coherent theme- just watch or rather read on. In addition, you may want to take a side trip because have you ever seen a fossil plant series in a museum display or textbook on evolution? Nope. Here you may find out why:

Mount Roraima is one of a group of table-top mountains (or mesas) made of quartz arenite (medium-grained detrital-loose material such as rock fragments or organic particles- that results directly from disintegration ) rock sandstone. By all orthodox geological methods, including radiometric ‘dating’, this rock is supposed to have been laid down no less than 1.7 (most say 1.8) billion years ago.

On the standard evolutionary geological column (Fig. 1), this was the Precambrian, well before there was supposed to be any multi-cellular life on Earth—only bacteria and algae. It is certainly long, long before there were supposed to be any plants on Earth capable of producing spores or pollen. The very earliest that evolutionists would tolerate anything even remotely like a seed-bearing plant is the late Devonian, around 380 million years ago.


The very earliest that evolutionists would even consider anything remotely like a seed-bearing plant is the late Devonian, around 380 million years ago. Yet fossils of spores and pollen have been found in the Roraima formation, as reported in a 1966 article in the prestigious journal Nature.[ii] That means they are at least 1,300 million, or 1.3 billion years ‘out of date’.

Researchers have reported finding several types of pollen from flowering plants in ‘dinosaur rock’ (Middle Triassic).[iii] On the evolutionary timeline this puts the origin of flowering plants ‘100 million years earlier’ than previously accepted.

Although such extensions in fossil ranges happen quite often,[iv] this one negates a long-held dogma of the evolutionary storyline. That is because these fossils would mean that flowering plants were present even at the beginning of the supposed dinosaur era.

No wonder that one finds pollen all the way down in Precambrian strata (supposedly more than a billion years before dinosaurs!).[v] Pollen, and many other fossils dramatically ‘out of place’ in relation to evolution’s supposed ‘timeline’, present a major problem to defenders of Darwin’s ideas.

There is a rationalization commonly used by evolutionists that can accommodate practically any fossil pattern into the evolutionary story—ghost lineages:[vi]

Any cladogram[vii] can be placed in a temporal framework that agrees with the stratigraphic record if sufficient ghost lineages are invoked [emphasis added].”[viii]

Ghost lineages are fossil lineages extended millions of years before the oldest find of a particular fossil. This occurs when fossils pronounced ‘ancestral’ based on morphology are thought to be much older than the evolutionary fossil dating indicates.

The colored items are the animals we know about, the uncolored ones are the ghosts filled it to make the leap from one to another.   I’m a Believer aren’t you.

(the Monkees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts )

Usually, a ghost lineage is assumed to have undergone ‘evolutionary stasis’ during the period for which there is no fossil evidence for its existence. But evolutionary stasis is itself a vacuous oxymoron seemingly designed just to keep people thinking that evolution explains all change, including no change.[ix]

Sometimes, however, some gaps are so large that filling it with one species is not enough. Though the concept of ‘ghost lineages’ is kept, the ‘evolutionary stasis’ assumption is thrown out. This constitutes inventing a whole ghost cladogram of unobserved species out of thin air when evolutionists think it is necessary:

“Short of extending the stratigraphic range of T. neglectus[x] across this stretch of time, it is more likely that the gap represents a ghost lineage partitioned by successive, but yet undiscovered species. Given the species longevity values calculated by Dodson (1990) it is clear that there must be considerable species diversity masked by the ghost lineage leading to T. neglectus, perhaps much more than the known diversity of the entire hypsilophodontid clade as presently recognized [emphasis added]!”[xi]

It has long been clear that the evolutionary/long-age framework of understanding is a powerful philosophical paradigm that resists falsification. Evolutionists have protested that it would be ‘easy’ to falsify evolution and its associated long-age system—just produce a substantially out-of-place fossil, e.g. pollen in the Cambrian.

Paleontology seeks to describe the location and history of fossils observed in the rocks. The spatial relationship between the fossils can be described directly as far as we can observe them—it is observational science. However, describing the distribution of fossils in time is completely different—it is natural history. Natural history is unrepeatable and unobservable. Reconstructing said history involves more than just what we directly observe in the rocks. Natural history is also bound up with the starting assumptions (or axioms) one brings to the investigation. One’s axioms determine what types of evidence are relevant and what could have happened in the past.

Auxiliary hypotheses, a concept coined by philosopher of science Imre Lakatos[xii], are an integral part of almost any core theory, such as evolution. They are used to explain evidence that at first glance appears contradictory to the core theory. Evolution, as a core theory, relies on many such auxiliary hypotheses to maintain its validity. This is not in and of itself a problem, but one needs to look at the evidential validity of the auxiliary hypotheses to see if the core theory can survive the claim of contradiction.

Ghost lineages (that is, lack of fossil evidence for lineages that evolutionists believe existed) are usually explained as resulting from the fluctuation of fossilization and evolutionary stasis. Nobody denies that fossilization is subject to many destructive conditions, and the fossils may create more gaps in our understanding of biology than they close. However, we have seen that ghost lineages are usually applied to essentially any discrepancy between the cladistics and stratigraphic ‘timelines’. Therefore, it is not an explanation per see; it is inherently an argument from silence—if there was evidence, ghost lineages would not need to be used.

Seems somebody was upset that I was using a piece of internet art without granting appropriate copyrights.  You can read the intelligent discussion that followed, The individual impresses me, he did not turn out to be the same “type” of individuals who normally respond to my posting with a litany of labels that are vile and vulgar.  Therefore, I was happy to discuss with him and point out a few items where I thought I was right.  He did seem to get upset over my describing his as materialistic.  If you do not believe in a supernatural cause to the universe then you are a materialist.  Proponents of methodological naturalism argue that science has been so successful precisely because it has assiduously avoided invoking creative intelligence and, instead, searched out strictly material causes for previously mysterious features of the natural world. However, he either didn’t consider a decision worth continuing or he could not respond to my counterpoints.

I will produce a series of articles on how the concept of cladogram (while once a useful tool) has been proven as useless as well as the so-called evolutionary family tree.  It will probably take until mid-November until I will have the time to write it and finish it up.

Paleontology seeks to describe the distribution pattern of fossils observed in the rocks, both spatially and temporally. The spatial relationships can be described directly—it is observational science. However, the temporal distribution of fossils is inescapably tied up with the presuppositions one brings to the historical investigation. One’s axioms determine what types of evidence are relevant and thus admissible to the paleontological discussion. Fossil patterns can’t give a history because they offer no description of themselves.

Back to the pollen. http://creation.com/roraima-pollen will provide you with far more information about the rock strata than you or I (unless you are a geologist) would care to know. I had to read it 5 times before I could finally understand what it was discussing. The basic conclusion is this: “Based on what has been published thus far and the established geological and mineralogical facts, the presence of pollen in Paleoproterozoic metasediments in the Roraima Supergroup remains a paradox. It can only be explained away through contamination if a whole range of improbable and contrary to sedimentological and hydrogeological tested facts are invoked.” In other words, the evolutionists are creating fairy tales to describe the inconsistencies

Oh, and that is not the only instance. Geologist Dr Clifford Burdick, was the first to report finding fossil pollen grains of seed plants in the so-called Hakatai Shale, a layer of the Grand Canyon classified as ‘Precambrian’. After extensive studying and testing accounting for all kinds of possible contamination and false positives, they came to this conclusion: “The weight of evidence favors the conclusion that fossil pollen is contained in ‘Precambrian’ shale.” This is contrary to expectations based on the accepted geological column.

The Bible tells us that the creation of plants (including flowering plants) on Day 3 of Creation Week actually predated the creation of dinosaurs on Day 6. And the rock strata with fossils do not represent the order of appearance and extinction over billions of years as the evolutionary paradigm would claim, but instead reflect the order of burial during and since the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9; cf. Luke 17:26–27), only about 4,500 years ago.

[i] The extent of the mountain (12 sq. miles) includes the triple border point of Venezuela, Brazil and Guyana (previously British Guiana).

[ii] Stainforth, R.M. Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,
Nature 210(5033):292–294, 16 April 1966.

[iii] Hochuli, P. and Feist-Burkhardt, S., Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland), Frontiers in Plant Science, 1 October 2013 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00344.

[iv] Oard, M.J., Further expansion of evolutionary fossil time ranges, Journal of Creation 24(3):5–7, 2010; creation.com/fossil-range-expansions.

[v] Stainforth, R., Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature 210(5033):292–294, 1966. However, evolutionists have steadfastly refused to allow that chronological extension to the ‘fossil range’.

[vi] Doyle, S. and Nethercott, P., Ghosts in the rocks, 14 July 2011; creation.com/ghost-lineages.

[vii] An approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared unique characteristics that can be traced to a group’s most recent common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors.

[viii] Geiger, D.L., Fitzhugh, K. and Thacker, C.E., Timeless Characters: a response to Vermeij (1999), Paleobiology 27(1):177–178, 2001

[ix] Doyle, S., Oldest fossil shrimp? J. Creation 25(1):3–4, 2011

[x] Thescelosaurus neglectus, “marvelous lizard,” was a moderately sized herbivorous dinosaur reaching lengths of up to 12 feet. Sometimes referred to as the “sheep of the dinosaur world,” Thescelosaurus appears to have had no defensive weapons and only a few dermal scutes for protection.  This would suggest speed was its natural defense. For some reason, the toe bones are the most often reported fossil from Thescelosaurus-maybe the feet out ran the T. Rex’s after it.

[xi] Weishampel, D.B, Fossils, phylogeny, and discovery: a cladistic study of the history of tree topologies and ghost lineage durations, J. Vert. Paleontol. 16(2):191–197, 1996; p. 196

[xii] A philosopher of mathematics and science, known for his thesis of the fallibility of mathematics and its ‘methodology of proofs and refutations’ in its pre-axiomatic stages of development

Evillution, The Science of it All

Did plants evolve?

Have you ever seen a fossil plant series in a museum display or textbook on evolution? Nope. When I took college Biology at Arizona State University in the early they taught us evolution and a little bit of paleobotany (the study of plant fossils) but not a single fossil series was ever presented as evidence that plant evolution actually did happen. It was always assumed to have occurred at the same time as the primordial soup to you and your relatives swinging from a tree or locked in a zoo. There has been a distinct lack of books regarding this area of evolution and I had to buy one recently in order to be familiar with the area for my articles. I found a number of them that all seem to be derivative works of the pioneer of the subject matter or they referenced his work extensively so I bought it.

This book was “The Diversity and Evolution of Plant”s, dated 1995 and published by CRC Press[i], a reputable publisher of top quality scientific manuals and textbooks, by the author, Dr Lorentz Pearson, who appears to be well qualified, being a Professor of Botany with a string of credits to his name. In the Preface, Professor Pearson boldly goes where so many others have gone and states that evolution is a fact attested to by the fossil record. The Introduction is entirely devoted to a narrative description of that evolutionary history. Now remember this, because it will be important near the end of this article.


The above is a simplified diagram of the plant phylogeny. Notice that evolutionists believe that plants first came from the ooze just as you and I did, from the bacteria and planktons and other assorted simple cells in the primordial soup . No idea as to how this goo separated into animals and plants, but I will be happy to overlook that particular issue just to show I’m not all bad- I mean just because that separation is the reason we are not walking, talking, intelligent trees such as in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I will concede that point to the evillutionists.

The main body of the book consists of 18 chapters that deal with the whole plant kingdom at the level of its 29 classes. Each chapter contains a diagram of the ancestor-descendant relationships between each class and its near neighbors and between the subdivisions within each class. According to Pearson, every class evolved from another class, with the bacteria being the original ancestor of all the others. In all 18 chapters, not a single fossil series was quoted or illustrated to support the phylogenetic trees!

Not only is there a lack of positive evidence for evolution, there are even contradictions between his tree diagrams and his written descriptions in just about every chapter. Can you say “Contradiction?” On p. 367, his phylogenetic tree shows that in the calcareous green algae there are two sub-groups, one of which evolved from the other. However, on p. 386 he says this class has an excellent fossil record that shows that the two sub-groups were separate from the beginning! Can you say “Contradiction?” On p. 407, his phylogenetic tree claims that the mosses evolved from the liverworts, but on p. 413 he lists four reasons why this arrangement is not supported by the fossil evidence! Can you say “Contradiction?”   On p. 447, he admits that there is ‘considerable difference of opinion’ on the alignment of the upper part of the phylogenetic tree, where many of the best fossils are! Can you say “I don’t know what I am talking about?”

Professor Pearson appears to have just assumed that evolution is a fact, and he has filled in the gaps in the evidence with his imagination.


[i] From their web page: “CRC Press is a premier publisher of science, technology, and medical reference books, textbooks and online content, reaching around the globe to collect essential reference material and the latest advances for researchers, academics, professionals and students.” On 1 May 2009 the company announced that it would be restructure its business so it was incorporated in Jersey but tax resident in Switzerland, which allows it to shelter its publishing income from U.S. tax rates. George Soros owns 28% of the stock in the Informa Group.

Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Human Fossils –where are they?

What happened to all the people who were not on board Noah’s Ark? People challenge biblical creationists with comments along the lines of, “I believe God created, and I don’t believe in evolution, but He could have taken billions of years, so what’s the big deal about the age of the earth?” Some claim that an emphasis on ‘6 literal days, 6,000 years ago’ even keeps people away from the faith. It might come as a surprise that I have a tendency to agree. The timescale in and of itself actually is not the important issue. The point is the issue ultimately comes down to, “Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says?” It therefore goes to the heart of the trustworthiness of Scripture. I have produced several articles already that deal with the actual scripture and the interpretation of the scripture to counter the arguments of most secular or atheistic believers.   https://iamnotanatheist.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/biblical-interpretation/ and https://iamnotanatheist.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/creation-and-logic/ .

This article will deal not with scripture, but with scripture proving that evolutionary scientists have some explanations to make about geologic facts that the biblical scientists can easily explain. If there were many millions of people populating the earth at the time of the Flood, would not many of those people have been buried in the Flood sediments? So why do we not find hundreds or even thousands of human fossils in the rock layers regarded as Flood sediments. If we believe in Scripture, then from our understanding of the Flood, we should expect to find human fossils in Flood strata. Therefore, it seems somewhat confusing that we do not find any.   There must be an obvious explanation for this lack of human fossils. To explore the reason for this, we will delve into geology, paleontology, archeology and the history of our planet.

The concept of long age’s dates back to 1830 and Charles Lyell[i] who released his book Principles of Geology. He stated that one of his aims was “To free the science [of geology] from Moses.” He built his ideas upon those of another geologist, James Hutton, who advocated a uniformitarian interpretation of the world’s geology. Lyell argued that the thousands of feet of sedimentary layers (laid down by water or some other moving fluid) all over the earth were the result of long, slow, gradual processes over millions or billions of years (instead of the processes of Noah’s Flood). He believed that processes observed in the present must be used to explain the geological history of the earth. This ‘present is the key to the past’ assumption (and its variants) is a cornerstone of modern geology. It involves a rejection of the biblical account of a global watery cataclysm. The millions of years assigned to the various layers in the ‘geological column’ were adopted long before the advent of radiometric dating methods

From http://biblicalgeology.net/images/stories/resources/geological_model_1.pdf we have the following graph. If it is too hard to read on this blog, please click the link and see it in person.



The secular geologic column goes like this. Not that this is one of the few that includes plants.


The theological problem comes from the fact that those rock layers do not just have rocks or granules in them. They contain fossils that are indisputable in the evidence of death—and not just of death, but carnivore, disease and suffering. There are remains that have tooth marks in them, and even animals fossilized in the process of eating other animals. There is evidence of disease, cancers, and infection; and general suffering from wounds, broken bones, etc. Biblically, we understand these things only began to happen after the Fall.

The implication of long-age belief is that God ordained death before the Fall of man, but the Bible clearly states that it was Adam’s actions that brought death into the world (Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned’). Evolution is a random and wasteful process that requires millions of ‘unfit’ organisms to die (if they had developed at all in the first place). Countless transitional forms would have arisen, only to fall as casualties in the great march ‘forward’ because they were not the mutational correct version to survive whatever change was necessary at that time.

There are some claims and reports of human artifacts and remains in rock layers that are clearly part of the Flood sediments. However, many of these claims are not adequately documented in any scientific sense, while those few reports that have appeared in the scientific and related literature remain open to question or other interpretations. Now, I already know what the skeptics out there are saying, “Yea, they just discredit what they don’t want by picking and choosing.” Well not quite, if when using the scientific method and you have presented evidence by lay scientists claiming to have found human artifacts or fossils and have not recorded specific location details, so that other scientists investigating the claims end up having difficulty finding the location from which the sample in question came- you have a problem. In addition, if lay scientists have in the past not kept some of the rock that enclosed the fossil or artifact as proof of its in situ occurrence-you have a problem. These two oversights have often made it next to impossible to reconstruct and/or prove where fossils or artifacts have came from, rendering such finds virtually useless.

Should genuine human fossils or artifacts from the time of Noah’s Flood be found, then it is mandatory that proper scientific procedures be followed to document the geological context, in order to guarantee that the scientific significance of such a find is unequivocally demonstrated. If there were millions of individuals on the earth either prior to the Flood or during the long evolutionary period – where are the fossils? There should be millions of fossils when all mammals except those on the Ark, were wiped out, or over millions of years all of the mammals died from starvation, predation or some kind of accident and possibly even old age. Where are they?

Let us begin by considering the nature of the fossil record. Most people do not realize that in terms of numbers of fossils, 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.[ii] Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tons of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. Comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils. However, those are what are talked about the most.

In any regional area where vertebrate fossils are found, there is a general tendency for these land animals to be higher up in the rock strata sequence on top of the strata containing marine organisms. This has been interpreted by evolutionists, as representing the evolutionary sequence of life from marine invertebrates, through fish and amphibians to the land-based vertebrates. This same observation can be reasonably explained by Flood geologists due to the order of burial of the different ecological zones of organisms by the Flood waters.

Another factor to be considered is the different mobility of humans in various locations and many land-dwelling animals with a variety of skills in locomotion. Compare them to much of the abundant marine life, such as corals, barnacles and shellfish for which we have an abundance of fossils. . When the Flood began, the rising Floodwaters would probably have encouraged humans and mobile land animals to quickly move from low-lying areas to higher ground.

Is it possible that people would still be alive when the Floodwaters finally covered all the land? Would the people and animals be swept away and be buried and preserved as fossils in the later Flood sediments? Can we assume that there was no destruction of the people’s bodies in the Floodwaters and by other processes operating during the Flood and subsequently? I doubt it! Not only would the turbulence of the sediment-laden Floodwaters probably destroy some of the human bodies swept away, but differential suspension in the waters could have made it hard to bury those bodies that survived the turbulence. This is because human bodies when immersed in water tend to bloat, and therefore become lighter and float to the surface. We have many instances of massive amounts of dead fish (for unknown reasons) floating on the water’s surface and being piled up on shores by the waves.


The human bodies floating on the water surface would then be carrion for whatever birds were still flying and seeking places to land and food to eat. Likewise, marine carnivores still alive in their watery habitat would also devour corpses. If the bodies floated long enough and were not eaten as carrion, they could still either decomposed or be beaten to destruction on and in the waters before any sediment burial could take place.

When we consider all possible factors, it would seem unlikely that many of the humans present at the time the Floodwaters came could have ended up being fossilized. Even if a few thousand, were preserved, when such a small number is distributed across the surface of the earth (after the flood receded, the chances of one being found at the surface are mathematically insignificant, and of one being found by a professional scientist who could recognize its significance and document it properly even less.

This is the prequel to my treatise on how I became a young-age biblical theorist. I have come to believe that the world is, according to the Biblical genealogy, only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I leave some wiggle room for the possibility of the long age of many of the individuals listed may be off. In addition, we do not know if the person was 350 years old or 350 years and 11 months old. Even the most ardent supporters of the Biblical genealogy state that there are several discrepancies. It is, in effect, inconsequential when compared to the so-called millions of years claimed by Darwinian evolutionists and the 50-100 million-year fluctuations they constantly give for the different dates in their chronology.

[i] His scientific contributions included an explanation of earthquakes, the theory of gradual “backed up-building” of volcanoes, and in stratigraphy the division of the Tertiary period into the Pliocene, Miocene, and Eocene. He also coined the currently-used names for geological eras, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic.

[ii] Wise, K.P., ‘The Flood and the fossil record’, an informal talk given at the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego (USA) on August 17, 1988