Information Enigma   provides a very interesting video on Information.

I have discussed it also at:


Another one on Evolution is shown to be false.

Evillution, Glossary, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All


Now let us get into the more difficult part: Million Years Age vs Young Age Earth

Today’s science relies on empirical analysis— that is, verification through repeated measurement and testing. It is the basis for what is known as the “scientific method,” the common steps that biologists and other scientists use to gather information to solve problems. These steps include observation, hypothesis (prediction), data collection, experimentation to test the hypothesis under controlled conditions, and conclusions.

Empirical analysis is a wonderful testing tool but its application is limited to the present— the way things are and the way they work in the present. Empirical science cannot deal directly with the past, as most people have been led to believe.

It is most important to realize that secular scientists assume evolution and old age as their foundation or basis for reconstruction or interpretation— evolution and an old earth are assumed to be true. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid only if it fits the old earth, evolutionary model. This is a very important concept to understand. The presumption of evolution “as fact” exists in many sciences including biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, and anthropology.

If you set aside preconceived notions, and openly read and try to understand different viewpoints, you will soon realize that the preponderance of scientific evidence refutes evolution and overwhelmingly supports the creation model— not evolution.

When compared, the young earth model (creation and a worldwide flood) fits the data perfectly while the old earth model (evolution with ‘slow and gradual’ geologic events) has continual flaws— it is essentially upside down science.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, on the other hand, simply states that matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another. This law confirms that creation is no longer occurring— but it also implies that creation occurred at sometime in the past!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/ energy in the universe available for work is decaying or running down. Entropy is a measure of disorder or unusable energy— it represents energy that is no longer available for doing work. Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy of the system and increases the amount of unusable energy. It is essentially a mathematical formula of the useless energy in a system.

(see detailed discussion at: )

Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy of the system and increases the amount of unusable energy. In other words, while usable energy is used for growth and repair, it is “irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.”1

What’s the difference between Laws of Science and Theory? “Scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply then all science based upon that law would collapse.” The First and Second Laws have always proved valid whenever they could be tested— there are no exceptions to these laws. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations based on hypotheses and verified by independent researchers— but theories are not laws, and they are often disproven and replaced with other theories. A “law” differs from theories, hypotheses, and principles in that a law can be expressed by a single mathematical equation with an empirically determined constant.

Then God said, ‘Let the waters below the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so.”— Genesis 1: 9, NAS

The doctrine of uniformitarianism maintains that geological and other physical processes operating in the world today have remained constant throughout earth’s history. Catastrophism maintains that normal geological and physical processes of the earth have been interrupted by a cataclysmic worldwide flood. According to the Bible, there have been two great worldwide upheavals since the beginning of time: Original Creation (Genesis 1) and Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6-8).

In the early 20th century, Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, noted that the continents (including the continental shelves) fit together as a single supercontinent. This antediluvian (pre-flood) landmass is commonly called Pangaea, from the Greek root word for “all lands.” The northern part of Pangaea is called Laurasia and the southern part is called Gondwanaland.





This is the process of the separation of the

Pangaea into the continents as we now know them.



Although no one could have observed the separation of Pangaea into the present-day continents, the evidence which supports the splitting of this ancient supercontinent is substantial. This includes not only the physiographic fit of the continents but also the alignment of major fault zones when the continents are placed together. The questions are, how long did it take, and when did the splitting occur?

Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth’s crust, and its evolution through time. In particular, it describes the processes of mountain building, the growth and behavior of the strong, old cores of continents known as cratons, and the ways in which the relatively rigid plates that comprise the Earth’s outer shell interact with each other. Tectonics also provides a framework to understand the earthquake and volcanic belts which directly affect much of the global population.


The separation or splitting apart of this ancient landmass took place about 4,400 years ago, during a catastrophic worldwide flood— a global event described in Genesis 6-8. This catastrophic shifting of landmasses and flooding can be separated into three phases (each phase overlapping into the next) which took place within a span of just one year— NOT millions of years as maintained by uniformitarian geologists.

At the end of the approximately 1,600-year antediluvian1 period just before the flood , it is believed that the population was more than 250 million people and the society was sophisticated, perhaps comparable to the early Egyptian culture.2

Also, climatic and topographic conditions were much different from our current world. Although the supercontinent had mountains, rivers and seas, its topography was much less prominent than we know today3 —the oceans weren’t so deep and the mountains weren’t so high (i.e., high hills and plateaus). There were other significant differences. The climate was similar to today’s temperate regions with moderate seasonal variations (Genesis 1: 14, 8: 22).

The splitting apart of the Pangaea landmass took place about 4,400 years ago, during Noah’s flood which was catastrophic and worldwide — described in Genesis 6-8. This catastrophic shifting of landmasses and flooding can be divided into three overlapping phases taking place within a span of just one year— NOT millions of years as maintained by uniformitarian geologists.

Events leading to our current land features were catastrophic rifting and subduction, uplift of ocean basins, flooding of the continents, sedimentary deposition, burial of uprooted forests (creating the coal and oil we find today), mountain and continental uplift, and torrential erosional drainage of the floodwaters. Horizontal movement— seafloor spreading and continental drift— was the main tectonic force during the first phase of the flood event, and vertical movement (uplift and subsidence of ocean basins, and mountain uplift or orogeny) was predominant in the latter two phases of the flood.

Click here for Phase 1:


1 Adjective: of or belonging to the time before the biblical Flood

2 I am not going to discuss the worlds population at this time and how far it had advanced. Many, many articles have been written and I do plan a follow up article on just that subject alone. Email me if you want more information.

3 Dillow, Joseph C. (1982). The Waters Above. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 141. Also see Whitcomb, J.C. (1988). The World That Perished. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 41-46.


Dr John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah’s Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.


  • B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
  • M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
  • M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
  • Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

His model of plate tectonics:

I believe there is now overwhelming evidence in favour of continental break-up and large-scale plate tectonic activity. The acceptance of these concepts is an amazing example of a scientific revolution, which occurred roughly between 1960 and 1970. However, this revolution did not go far enough, because the earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidence for catastrophism—large-scale, rapid change—throughout the geological record. So the timescale the uniformitarian scientists today are using is dramatically too long. The strong weight of evidence is that there was a massive catastrophe, corresponding to the Genesis Flood, which involved large and rapid continental movements. My conclusion is that the only mechanism capable of producing that scale of catastrophe and not wrecking the planet in the process had to be internal to the earth.

I am persuaded it involved rapid subduction (sinking) of the pre-Flood ocean floor, pulling the ‘plates’ apart at the beginning of the Flood, and was probably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ described in Scripture.

There are to my knowledge three other computer codes for modeling the earth’s mantle and so on, in the world. These other three use a mathematical method not so well suited for the modern parallel supercomputers. The one I developed uses the finite element technique and performs very well on the new, very large supercomputers. So, many of my colleagues are recognizing it as the most capable code in the world.

Runaway subduction

Last year NASA funded this effort as one of the nine grand challenge projects for the next three years in their High Performance Computing and Communication initiative, and are supporting two post-doctoral researchers to collaborate with me to improve it, and apply it to study the earth.

This code is comparable to what are called general circulation models for the atmosphere and oceans, which are some of the largest codes in the world in terms of how much machine power they consume. It’s got lots of physics in it to model the details of the mechanical behaviour of the silicate rock inside the earth. My present focus is to make the representation of the tectonic plates even more realistic. So the code is in an ongoing state of development, but it’s come a long way in the last 15 years.


Seafloor ‘zebra-stripes’ don’t mean slow and gradual.

The mid-ocean ‘ridges’ are undersea mountain chains with volcanoes at the boundary between two ‘plates’ of the earth’s outer shell. It is believed that here, molten magma from below can well up as the plates move apart, making new oceanic crust—a process called ‘seafloor spreading’. As the new crust cools down, it ‘freezes’ within it the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time.

When instruments measuring magnetism are towed (on the ocean surface) across these ridges, they detect bands of alternating magnetic direction, like a ‘zebra-stripe’ pattern, with each side of the ridge mirroring the other. This is interpreted to mean that as new seafloor had gradually formed on each side of the ridge, the earth’s magnetism had slowly reversed many times, over millions of years. However, DR Baumgardner says this pattern does not mean the spreading was slow. He says,

‘From an estimate of the viscosity of the outer core, where the currents associated with the earth’s magnetism exist, there is no reason why the magnetic field can’t reverse rapidly. Moreover, there is field evidence that it has reversed rapidly, within weeks.’[1]

In addition, drilling the sea floor has shown that, regardless of the overall direction of the magnetism detected from the surface, the magnetic direction within a drill core frequently varies widely. [2] This is less consistent with slow spreading than with a rapid welling up of new magma during a period of rapid reversals; the magma in contact with the surface will reflect the direction at that time, but by the time the deeper magma cools a few weeks later, the direction has switched again—and so on for deeper levels.

Return to:


End notes:

1 R.S. Coe, M. Prevot and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374:687–692, April 20, 1995. The finding (by highly respected experts in paleo-magnetism) of ‘astonishing’ rates of reversal, has now been duplicated more than once.

2 J.M. Hall and P.T. Robinson, ‘Deep crustal drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean’, Science 204:573–586, 1980.


A valuable lesson in life from a heavy set Afro-American or when a weekend isn’t a weekend.

Of course back in 1972, Afro-American wasn’t a common word. Her name was Ruby and she hated to be called black or a Negro. She wanted us to know she was a ‘Negress.’ She weighed at least 350 lbs an she was always going to go on a diet after the next holiday- whatever it was. She was the lady in charge of J-10 at the Arizona State Hospital. The Juniper building had 5 wings on both the east and west side with the cafeteria in the middle. The west side was for the geriatric patients and the east wing – the farthest to the edge of the hospital grounds was for the “mentally retarded.” J-10 was for the worst of the worst patients (and staff) who did not quite fit in with everyone else on the grounds. I had not had a shave or a haircut since June of 1968 and was assigned to J-10 where Ruby was my shift supervisor. Nine years later I was promoted to being in charge of the entire unit and fired her fat b***k arse.

That is not what we are here to talk about. A different way of thinking about the calendar is what we need to discuss. I had worked there for about three years and had gotten married and my wife and I wanted to go to California for a pop festival so I wanted a weekend off and applied for it. At that time, I asked Ruby when I would be eligible to have weekends off on a regular basis since all I had known since I started working there was Wednesday and Thursday as days off.   She got very snide with me and told me I was “damn lucky” (I wasn’t her favorite staff member) to have my days off together. Somewhat confused I asked her what she meant. She waddled over to the calendar on the wall and pointed out and said “See, Wednesday and Thursday are your days off- together.” I protested and said, but you have the weekends off and she again gesticulated at the calendar and said, “Ain’t so bright for a white boy are you. Lookie here, I have Sunday – the first day of the week off and Saturday the last day of the week off. Now get your ass out of the office and go take care of your patients.”


And that was when I realized, that most things in life are a function of how you decide to look at it and I became a contrarian determined from then on to question everything.

So back to our point, what is the basis for the calendar that we have. Is it Biblical and are there other calendars that more accurately reflect the time that we pass on this earth? The Chinese calendar and the Islamic calendar seem strange to those of us who have been brought up in the West. To most of us, there is something strange with New Year coming at the end of January (or a few days before, or a couple of weeks after); or the month of Ramadan falling earlier and earlier each year.

The moon proceeds through its phases in a cycle of about 29.5 days (called the ‘synodic’ month), so having months alternating between 29 and 30 days keeps closely in step with the moon. A new moon signals a new month and a full moon the middle of the month. This idea is not foreign to our western culture. The Shorter Oxford dictionary notes that the word ‘month’ is derived from the word ‘moon’. The primary definition of month is “a measure of time corresponding to the period of revolution of the moon”. Therefore, the idea of a lunar month is logical. On the Islamic calendar a sequence of 12 of these lunar months, make up a year.

The Chinese calendar is more complicated. It is often referred to as a lunar calendar, but is actually a luni-solar calendar. It has months which are tied in with the phases of the moon as does the Islamic calendar, but additionally it keeps the year in step with the seasons in the long term by having some years with 13 months. That seems strange to us because we have grown up with 12 months in a year?

Is there no certain rule by which calendars ought to be formulated? Some absolute standard that will enable us to say that some calendar features are unacceptable? In fact, we do. The Bible sets out God’s provisions:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14-19).

So God’s word tells us that He provided the astronomical cycles for us to determine time periods (seasons). The day-night cycle, caused by the earth’s rotation defines the day for us; the phases of the moon give us the month; and the motion of the stars, moving full circle over about 365 days sets the year for us. There is no requirement here for there to be 12 months in a year.

That calendar we are all familiar with was adopted by the early church and has become the standard world-wide buy it is deficient. In fact, just as the Islamic calendar is defective because it has a year arbitrarily made up of 12 lunar months, so the Roman calendar is defective because it has a month, which is just an arbitrary division of the year into 12 segments.

The Hebrew calendar used by the Jewish people for many centuries is still in use today. Like the Chinese calendar, it has months generally alternating between 29 and 30 days, to keep in step with the lunar month, and also keeps in step with the solar year in the long term. It has a fixed cycle containing seven 13-month years in every 19 years.

It is tempting to wonder if originally there were exactly 12 lunar months in a solar year. Perhaps, in the way God set things up in His perfect creation, there were exactly 30 days in a lunar month and exactly 360 days in a solar year. Various people groups could then have a valid cultural memory, handed down from the time before different languages arose at the tower of Babel and people were dispersed.

There are some indications of this mathematically perfect scheme:

  • The symbol we use for a degree (an elevated circle) apparently came from the Babylonian mathematicians and is intended to represent the sun. With 360 days in a year, the sun would move exactly one degree per day (Observed by a motion of the stars in one night).
  • In Hebrew terminology, a month with only 29 days is called ‘defective’. Normally a month has 30 days.
  • The chronology of the global flood in Genesis chapters 6 to 9 seems to allow for 370 days, but the starting and ending dates indicate clearly it was a year plus 10 days (Genesis 7:11-13 says the “fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” on 17th day of the second month when Noah was 600 years old, while Genesis 8:13-16 says Noah and his family came out of the ark on the 27th day of the second month in Noah’s 601st year).

However, the idea is hard to substantiate when the physics are considered. The earth could have increased its speed of rotation to get an extra five-and-a-bit days in a year (for example, through catastrophic plate tectonic movements[1] (A detailed discussion is in a future article) decreasing the moment of inertia of the earth at the time of the Flood), and the moon could have moved closer to the earth to get an increased number of lunar months in a year, although no particular mechanism has been identified as of yet.

We have seen that the day, the month and the year had their origins in astronomical periods, which God instituted for that purpose. But the week is different. It is not based on any observable astronomical period. The origin of the seven-day week is set out in Genesis when God completed His creation, setting a pattern for His creatures (Genesis 2:2-3 and Exodus 20:11).

It is fair to ask what is the origin of the names we use for the days of the week? It does not take long to make an internet search to discover the days of the week are identified with seven pagan gods associated with the five major planets plus the sun and moon. This planetary week was popularized by the Romans, and spread at the same time as did the rapid growth of Christianity.[2]  ‘Planet’ in the original sense meant ‘wanderer’, as opposed to fixed star, and these ‘wanderers’ across the sky were seen to be different from the stars. Names of Germanic gods eventually replaced the names of Roman gods as the basis for our English week day names (see Table 1).

The early Christian church numbered the days of the week, following Jewish practice, to avoid using the names of heathen deities. (I’ll meet you at the restaurant at 3:00 pm on day 3 of next week.) Interestingly, the Greek Orthodox Church still follows this practice, except that the first day of the week is called the ‘Lord’s day’.

Weekday Teutonic God Roman God/Planet Latin name 
Sunday Sun Dies Solis
Monday Moon Dies Lunae
Tuesday Tiw Mars Dies Martis
Wednesday Woden Mercury Dies Mercurii
Thursday Thor Jupiter (Jove) Dies Iouis
Friday Frigg Venus Dies Veneris
Saturday Saturn Dies Saturni

But why are the days in the given order? Is the order arbitrary, or is there some rational explanation for it? The oldest answer appears to be in the writings of Dio Cassius.[3]  He gives two alternatives of how the established arrangement of the weekdays may be obtained from the ‘correct’ order of the planets, which he gives as starting with Saturn and ending with the moon.

His first (and rather unconvincing) explanation involves the musical principle of the tetrachord—a series of four musical notes—to skip to the fourth deity each time. His second explanation runs as follows: In astrology, every hour has its presiding deity who exerts his influence in that hour. Each hour of the week is assigned to one of the seven deities, and the deity who controls the first hour of each day is the regent of that day and gives his name to it.

In Table 2 I have set down Dio Cassius’ complete scheme, based on the assumption of a 10-hour day. It will be clear from this how the accepted order of the day’s results from the ‘correct’ order of the deities associated with the planets.

HR. Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
1 Saturn Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus
2 Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun Moon Mars Mercury
3 Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun Moon
4 Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn
5 Venus Saturn Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter
6 Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun Moon Mars
7 Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun
8 Saturn Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus
9 Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun Moon Mars Mercury
10 Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn Sun Moon

Dio Cassius actually explains the scheme in terms of a 24-hour division of the day (it will be found that 24 hours give the same result, but not, say, 12 hours). If the Egyptians were using a 10-hour day in the first century BC, as some historians suggest, they could still have devised the scheme, as Dio Cassius claims. Where or when the 24-hour day originated is not known.[4]

The above explanation seems to put Saturday as the first day of the week. However, there is evidence that the Jewish Sabbath was identified with Saturn’s day in the first century BC. Dio Cassius tells of the Roman attack on the temple in Jerusalem, a success on Saturn’s day because the defenders would not fight on that day.[5] There is a suggestion in the writings of the Roman poet Tibullus (who died in 18 BC) that the Jewish people were thought to be Saturn worshippers.[6]

It seems, then, that the Jewish week and the planetary week have separate origins. We assume the planetary week began about the first century BC. It is clear from Dio Cassius’ writing that there is a vast difference between the two. In the planetary week, every day was dedicated to a god, and they were all much the same. But with the Jewish week, one day was singled out and dedicated specially to the living God (something which Dio Cassius could not comprehend).

We can say that from the time the planetary week came in contact with the Jewish week, Saturday has been identified with the Sabbath, and Sunday is therefore the first day of the week. In this connection, it is somewhat disconcerting to see calendars these days with Monday as the first day of the week.


Business people set up Microsoft© OutLook ™ with Monday the first day of the week, which would be Biblically accurate if Sunday was to be the last day of the week. In some business that I have worked at, this is the way that the Outlook calendar was delivered to the desktop, because we did all of our work from 9 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday.

The early Christian church saw great importance in the first day of the week; the day on which Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the day on which He ascended to heaven, and the day on which the Holy Spirit was poured out and the Church born. That would have been on Sunday, with Saturday being the day of rest, which gives us the group known as Seventh Day Adventists.

The planetary weekday names were later accepted by the Roman branch of the church, and hence ‘Christianized’. Jerome[7] says of Psalm 118:24, ‘Why is it called the Lord’s day? Because on it He ascended victoriously to His Father. But if the Gentiles called it the Sun’s day, we gladly admit it. For in this day the light of the world rose, on this day the sun of righteousness rose.’[8]

Note also the historical evidence for different types of weeks before the development of the planetary week:

  • Sabbatical week. Kept by the people of Israel.
  • Roman week. Consisted of seven or eight days. Approximately 1/4 of the month. It provided convenient spacing for market days, called ‘nundinae’.[9]
  • Babylonian-Assyrian week. Rest days fell on fixed days of the month: seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth. This week operated in the seventh century BC.[10]
  • Egyptian week. Consisted of 10 days, that is 1/3 of the month.[11] This week is said to date from very early in Egyptian history. It is doubtful though whether we should call a 10-day period a week.

Some historians suggest a development of the Jewish week from the Babylonian week in about 600 BC,[12] but without clear historical evidence. Other historians, who would seem to be more thorough, conclude differently: “The week of seven days was thus completely independent of the month [in contrast to the Babylonian and Assyrian week].”[13]

Having exhausted the extra-biblical historical evidence of a week, we can turn to the most reliable source of history we have—history concerning God’s dealing with man, and His chosen people.

If we accept the biblical account, we find the Jewish people keeping the Sabbath well before historical references to the Roman or Babylonian weeks. At the very commencement of Israel as a nation, we find God revealing the sabbatical week to His people. Even before the giving of the Law, when God provided the manna miraculously, He gave it in such a way as to teach His people about the sabbatical week. On the sixth day, there would be sufficient manna for two days, so the people did not need to gather any on the Sabbath—when none would be provided. If they gathered more than they needed on other days, it would spoil. But not on the sixth day (Exodus 16). A miraculous provision indeed! This, like the Sabbath day itself, was to emphasize man’s utter dependence on his Creator.

When Moses received the Law at Mount Sinai, the first thing God revealed to him was the Ten Commandments, which of course included the command about the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11). And the last thing God said to him before he came down the mountain with the tablets, was to keep the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-17). Keeping the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel—a testimony to an unbelieving world that this people was sanctified by God (Exodus 31:13).

But the week had its origin well before this—more than 2500 years before Moses’ day, at the very beginning of time. When God created the heavens and the earth, He created it all in six days, and then rested on the seventh. In both Exodus chapters 20 and 31, we find God giving the reason for the week as the pattern He set in creation (Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17). He took seven days in creation specifically to set a precedent for man, who is the pinnacle of His creation and indeed the very reason for the whole creation. (Something that atheists have not the ability to imagine or understand, but they claim to understand multiple thousands of parallel universes).

Genesis chapter 1 could not be much more specific about the fact that God took six actual days to complete the Creation. The writer of Genesis did not say they were 24-hour days and this provides Atheists and others to say these could have been thousands to millions of years long. However, for day and night to fall, you would have to have a rotation of the earth which, of course, is 24 hours long. This construct and absurdity of discussion will be in another article.

Where else could the week come from? It is not related to any astronomical observations, as are the day, the month and the year. It exists because God specified it. He clearly tells us it reflects what He did in the Creation week. Who is able to contradict Him? We were not there. No historian was there. Nor was Adam, the first man, until the sixth day of the Creation week. This makes it impossible to argue with the historical facts that God Himself gives us.

All the pointers are there in Genesis—in God’s perfect creation—for humans to order their lives starting with a 24-hour day. God gave us a pattern for working six days and resting on the seventh.

He gave us the stars by which we can even navigate our way around the earth. And He made an orderly universe so that by using the intelligence that comes from the Creator, we can observe, for example, that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. And that the earth also rotates on its axis every 24 hours.[14] And, using that knowledge of astronomy, the ancients were able to work out the earth’s position in the universe.

Days, months, years and seasons have always been central to our existence and a calendar a vital tool to keep track of events in our lives. So when you next flick through a calendar—even our flawed one—it should remind you of God’s creative genius and that it was He who set time and our world in motion in six, literal, 24-hour days, about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

[1] Baumgardner, J., Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood,

[2] Colson, F.H., The Week, Greenwood Press, Westport, p. 92, 1974.

[3] Cassius, D., Roman History, (Book 37), translated by E. Cary, (Vol. 3), Heinemann, London, Chapters 18 and 19, 1974.

[4] It might be pointed out in passing also that a 24-hour day is dependent on the spin of the earth on its own axis independent of the sun, and even at the poles today we may note that a 24-hour day does not require the sun to set.

[5] Ref. 2, (Book 37), chap. 16.

[6] Ref. 1, pp. 16, 17 (“I often alleged auguries and evil omens, or that I held the day of Saturn sacred.”—Tibullus).

[7] Jerome’s translation of Scripture took over 40 years. He translated the Gospels and the Old Testament, but not Acts, the New Testament epistles, or Revelation. His translations of the Gospels were revisions of the old Latin versions. He began revising the old Latin of the Old Testament in a similar fashion, but eventually decided to start over and make fresh translations straight from the Hebrew.

[8] Ref. 1, p. 94. Note that this may not have been written by Jerome.

[9] Ref. 1, pp. 2,3

[10] Richmond, B., Time Measurement and Calendar Construction, E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 39, 40, 42, 1956.

[11] O’Neill, W.M., Time and the Calendars, Sydney University Press, Sdyney, p. 66, 1975.

[12] Ref. 7, p. 74

[13] Negev, A., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Weidenfeld Nicolson, London, p. 316, 1972 (Under the entry ‘Time’)

[14] DeYoung, D. B., Astronomy and the bible.


The Kallikaks

The name Kallikak is a pseudonym used as a family name throughout a 1912 book by the American psychologist Henry H. Goddard. Goddard coined the name from the Greek words καλός (kallos) meaning beautiful and κακός (kakos) meaning bad. The book follows the genealogy of Martin Kallikak, Deborah’s great-great-great grandfather, a Revolutionary War hero married to a Quaker woman. On his way back from battle, the normally morally upright Martin dallied one time with a barmaid. The young Martin soon reformed and went on with his upright life, becoming a respected New England citizen and father of a large family of prosperous individuals. All of the children that came from this relationship were “wholesome.”

But according to Goddard, a child was born by the dalliance with the barmaid. This single child, a male, went on to father more children, who fathered their own children, and on and on down the generations. With the Kallikaks, Goddard claims to have discovered, as close as one could imagine, an experiment in the hereditability of intelligence, moral ability, and criminality.

On the barmaid side of the Kallikak family, the children wound up poor, insane, delinquent, and mentally retarded. On the other side of the Kallikak family tree, the children ended up prosperous, intelligent, and morally upstanding. They were lawyers, ministers, and doctors.

Goddard concluded from this that intelligence, sanity, and morality were hereditary. What was that? Goddard described the barmaid as”feeble-minded”: a catch-all early 20th century term to describe various forms of mental retardation or learning deficiencies. Goddard was interested in the heritability of “feeble-mindedness”—and often wrote of the invisible threat of recessive “feeble-minded” genes carried by otherwise healthy and intelligent looking members of the population.

Goddard was convinced that this free-spirited young girl who was kind to animals, loved music, and “was bold towards strangers,” was nothing less than a menace to the future of American civilization. Goddard, who holds the dubious honor of introducing the term “moron” (“Moron” was coined in 1910 from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant “dull”) into the English language, was obsessed with how “feebleminded” Americans were degrading their country’s racial stock.

According to Goddard, a field investigation of the area surrounding the “ancestral home” of Deborah’s family “showed that the family had always been notorious for the number of defectives and delinquents it had produced.” Indeed, the more Kallikak family members the investigators located, the more deficient the family’s bloodline appeared to be. “The surprise and horror of it all was that no matter where we traced them, whether in the prosperous rural district, in the city slums … or in the more remote mountain regions, or whether it was a question of the second or the sixth generation, an appalling amount of defectiveness was everywhere found.”

Goddard believed that members of the Kallikak family were especially dangerous to America’s racial stock because on the surface many of them did not appear to be particularly deficient. “A large proportion of those who are considered feeble-minded in this study are persons who would not be recognized as such by the untrained observer,” acknowledged Goddard,

Published during the same year presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson was campaigning for an evolutionary understanding of the Constitution, Goddard’s book urged the nation to apply biological science to its social-welfare policies as well.

In Goddard’s view, heredity rather than charity was the key to eliminating the underclass and its associated social ills. By 1912, his message was striking a chord with American policymakers, social scientists, and cultural leaders. New books advocating eugenics were being published, a Broadway play on the subject was in preparation, and professional societies were taking up the topic in earnest. In Washington, D.C., Dr. Woods Hutchinson of the New York Polyclinic preached eugenics at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. Hutchinson proposed that all American schoolchildren be given a eugenics inspection by their third year in school. “As soon as the 2 to 3 per cent of all children who are hereditarily defective are determined they should be given such a training as will fit them for the part they are likely to play in life. Then they should either be segregated in open-air farm colonies or sterilized.” A few days later, Dr. L. F. Barker of Johns Hopkins University lectured the International Hygiene Congress about the importance of “providing for the birth of children endowed with good brains” and “denying, as far as possible, the privilege of parenthood to the manifestly unfit.”

The eugenics movement drew direct inspiration from Darwinian biology. Yet today the Darwinian roots of eugenics tend to be downplayed both by the popular media and by some scholars. When Darwin’s theory is mentioned at all, a sharp distinction is often drawn between Darwin’s own views and the “Social Darwinism” of the eugenists, who supposedly extended Darwin’s theory into realms unanticipated by him. The eugenists’ underlying fear was the same as the one Charles Darwin had articulated so clearly in The Descent of Man: By saving the weak through medicine and charity, and by allowing defective classes to reproduce, civilized societies were counteracting the law of natural selection to the detriment of the human race.

According to the eugenists, human beings were essentially no different from horses, dogs, or blackberries, and so the techniques perfected to breed animals and plants could easily be applied to men and women with just as much success. “Man is an organism— an animal,” declared Charles Darwin, “and the laws of improvement of corn and of race horses hold true for him also.” “All life is conditioned by the same fundamental laws of nature,” agreed H. E. Jordan. “It would seem, then, that the same methods that man now employs in producing a high quality breed of dogs, or birds, or cattle, or horses, he must apply to himself.” “If the human race is to be permanently improved in its inherited characteristics,” wrote Princeton biologist Edwin Conklin, “there is no doubt that it must be accomplished in the same way in which man has made improvements in the various races of domesticated animals and cultivated plants.” And since breeders of animals and plants are experts in heredity, the public should let them determine how humans should breed.

Eugenists in the 1920s marketed sterilization as the cure to what they depicted as a looming welfare crisis. In a 1926 speech at Vassar College promoting sterilization, Margaret Sanger spoke in near-apocalpytic terms about the ruinous costs to taxpayers of welfare spending to care for defectives. “In 1923 over nine billions of dollars were spent on state and federal charities for the care and maintenance and perpetuation of these undesirables,” she complained. “Year by year their numbers are mounting. Year by year their cost is increasing. Huge sums— yes, vast fortunes— are expended on these, while the normal parents and their children are compelled to shift for themselves and compete with each other.” She added that “the American public is taxed, heavily taxed, to maintain an increasing race of morons, which threatens the very foundations of our civilization.” In her bestselling book The Pivot of Civilization (1922), Sanger likewise tried to alert Americans to alarming expenditures on social-welfare programs for the mentally defective, urging readers that “our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.” Eugenists also criticized traditional welfare programs for ignoring biological reality and relying instead on sentimental ideals of human equality. Margaret Sanger warned of the “dangers inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste, of inequality and inefficiency.” Sanger of course was the creator of Planned Parenthood.

Goddard hid the real identities of the Kallikaks, making it impossible for other scholars to try to verify his account. But through meticulous scholarly detective work, J. David Smith was finally able to identify the family in the 1980s. He conclusively showed that Goddard’s assessment was more a product of prejudice than unbiased scientific investigation. The Kallikaks were not hereditarily unfit at all. They had their share of social misfits, but they also had their “strengths and successes. The tragedy of the disfavored Kallikaks is that their story was distorted so as to fit an expectation. They were perceived in a way that allowed only their weaknesses and failures to emerge.”

And that is how Darwinism, evillution and progressivism has warped and distorted the world around us. That is what happens when, supposedly intelligent individuals fall for the latest unsubstantiated “pop” theory.


Glossary, Intelligent Design

Calendar-Day vs Day-Age Creationism

I feel somewhat conflicted; there is a great debate raging among the biblical scientists today. However, it is nowhere near as great as the debates ranging among the various disciplines of the secular scientists.

As I have said before, I still have difficulties reconciling the age of the earth being between six and 10,000 years old when I have been indoctrinated most of my life with the concept that it is over 65 million years old. It is kind of like the Stockholm syndrome where the captured individual will eventually take on the cause of their captors. You say something enough times and individuals eventually believe it unconditionally.

Within the biblical scientists there are two major groups that have developed and there is a major difference between them. The major groups are RTB (Reason To Believe) and CMI (Creation Ministries Inc.) and I have examined them closely and I am writing this series to discuss them.

Whether you are a secular scientists are a biblical scientist they all have something in common. Based upon what they believe in they are guessing about the past. They believe it by faith. The faith of the evolutionist, which can be summarized as follows: ‘We cannot go back in time to observe evolution happening, but although we weren’t there, we’re sure evolution happened. We just don’t know how or why!’ There is no scientific test that can be done to duplicate anything that happened 6,000 years ago or 65 million years ago.

Therefore, whether you believe the secular scientists or split with the scientists at RTB or CMI nobody was there. There are many gaps in trying to make a cohesive theory of the origins of everything and further extensive scientific work in many professional areas may help us understand some of what is still left to know. Ultimately, if a person chooses a worldview that redefines science to say that only natural processes have ever occurred, that person will be forced to the irrational conclusion that any change in the genome (even if it is downhill) is evidence of big-picture (uphill) evolution—the sort that supposedly changed single cells into scientists.

CMI firmly believes the Bible is a historical representation of the creation account and that at least gives them basis to build their creation account. RTB tries to build a biblical account but built on millions of years of creation and therefore is in extreme disagreement with many parts of the Bible. Secular humanism builds their creation account on nothing, literally.

So let’s begin with a brief comparison between RTB and CMI

Reason To Believe Creation Ministries International
The earth and universe are billions of years old. The earth and universe are about 6000 years old.
The days of creation were really vast ages. The days of creation were ordinary days.
The sun and stars were created before the earth, and merely ‘appeared’ to a hypothetical observer on earth on the fourth ‘day.’ The sun and stars were created on Day 4, after the earth—which was created on Day 1.
The seventh day is still continuing, supported by the ‘fact’ of no speciation in the last 10,000 years. The seventh day was also about 24 hours long. Some populations become reproductively isolated today, which by definition means that a new species is formed.
Animals were eating each other, dying from natural disasters, and suffering from many diseases, for millions of years before mankind existed. Creation was originally ‘very good,’ while death, suffering and disease ultimately are the result of Adam’s sin that resulted in God’s curse upon His creation.
God created almost all species separately. God created comparatively few ‘kinds,’ and many ‘species’ are the result of non-information-increasing diversification of the created gene-pools, especially after the Flood.
God created Adam about 10,000–60,000 years ago (after the Aboriginals arrived in Australia 40,000 years ago). Neanderthals were not true humans but soulless hominids. God created Adam about 6000 years ago. All truly human fossils (Neanderthals, Homo erectus) were descended from him, and likely lived shortly after Babel.
The order in the fossils is a record of distinct ages with vastly different creatures existing, all the results of a separate creation by God. Much of the fossil ‘order’ reflects the different stages of burial in a worldwide Flood and subsequent local catastrophes, as well as different ecosystems.
Noah’s Flood was restricted to the Mesopotamian river valley. Noah’s Flood covered the entire globe.
God had to intervene supernaturally to produce the different racial characteristics, to help the people separate at Babel. Adam and Eve had the genetic information to give rise to all the different ‘races’ (people groups) today, allowing for non-information-gaining mutations. The racial characteristics arose after small people groups became reproductively isolated after the Babel dispersion.


Here you can see the major differences that appear in the above table.

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, gives his own perspective on the differences between ‘young-earth’ or ‘calendar-day’ creationists like CMI, and ‘old-earth’ or ‘day-age’ creationists like RTB in a brochure he puts out in which he tries to state what he believes is the viewpoint of CMI.

cdc = Calendar-Day Creationists (i.e. accept that the days of Genesis 1 were ordinary days as researched by Creation Ministries International and Institute for Creation Research)

dac = Day-Age Creationists (i.e. RTB, Center for Science and Culture and many other ‘Progressive creationists’)

Dr Ross’s comments are in indented, i.e. the lines headed by cdc are what Ross claims CMI believes, not necessarily what they actually believe which follows the cdc designation.

Ten Major Differences

  1. cdc: Natural biological evolution works, producing new species and genera within orders and families.

This is misleading, because in ‘biological evolution’ no new information is produced. However, that new species arise is indisputable—Ross seems not to understand that producing a new reproductively isolated population is by definition a new species. In addition, there is no Biblical or scientific reason why the created kinds cannot sometimes have enough built-in genetic variation so they can give rise to varieties within the genus or family (a man-made classification after all and which many others are trying to reconfigure since it was first developed- by a creationist by the way).

  1. dac: Natural biological evolution fails at all levels except for those species numbering more than about one quadrillion individuals with generation times less than three months and body sizes smaller than one centimeter.

This is an amazing statement—one wonders what this astronomer’s source of such biological nonsense could be. This fixity of species view goes well beyond the Biblical text and is disproved by operational science.

2. cdc: Laws of physics were radically different before Adam’s sin.

  1. dac: Laws of physics were identical before and after Adams’ sin.

One wonders what difference Ross thinks the Fall of man made. However, with the exception that God withdrew some of His sustaining power, cdc believe that the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. were operative from creation.

3. cdc: Redeemed humanity will be restored to paradise.

3. dac: Redeemed humanity will be delivered from paradise to a brand new creation.

This is misleading. Cdc believers affirm that there will be ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ (Revelation 21:1), and even now, believers in Christ are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). Cdc also believe that the new creation will be even grander than the original paradise, because there will no longer be even the possibility of sin. However, we point out that many references to the Consummation (not a successful wedding pairing- in this context it means the ultimate end).


A more accurate way of expressing our difference is that dac denies a pre-Fall deathless paradise altogether! This is shown by their last point of difference below.

  1. cdc: Genesis 1 is the account of physical creation. …

Of course. It’s not only us who believe this, but God Himself spoke the Fourth Commandment, giving the reason that He created in six days and rested on the 7th (Exodus 20:8–11).

  1. dac: It is critical to carefully integrate all ten of the major creation accounts in the Bible.

What are they talking about? The Bible never contradicts itself, and there is nothing to contradict in the plain teaching of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8–11 or anywhere else in the Bible.

5. cdc: The universe and the stars are eternal.

 5. dac: The universe and the stars are temporal.

cdc has never posited that the universe or stars are eternal? That statement is without foundation and is highly misleading.

6. cdc: Astronomers are deceiving the public.

6. dac: Astronomers are telling us the truth.

cdc normally point out that secular astronomers are not necessarily consciously deceiving the public, but are looking at the same data as us, only through the wrong ‘glasses’. The cdc position is well stated in for the creation/evolution controversy in general, and for age issues in particular.

7. cdc: The heavens merely reveal the existence of God.

7. dac: The heavens also reveal God’s transcendent qualities and many of His personal attributes.

It’s hard to know what dac is thinking here. We often quote Romans 1:20. However, what cdc deny is that creation reveals enough for salvation, and we also deny that the interpretations by fallible humans of the creation should override the propositional revelation of Scripture.

8. cdc: There is only one literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

8. dac: There are several literal interpretations of Genesis 1.

Only if there are several literal interpretations of the word ‘literal’! The literal meaning of ‘literal’ is: ‘Taking words in their usual or primary sense and applying the ordinary rules of grammar, without mysticism, allegory or metaphor.’ The usual and primary meaning of ‘day’ is a single period of Earth’s rotation, and this is unambiguous when accompanied by a number, evening, and/or morning.

9. cdc: Genesis 1 cannot be reconciled with the established record of nature.

9. dac: Genesis 1 can be reconciled with the established record of nature.

Rather, cdc believers would say: ‘Genesis 1 cannot be reconciled with the uniformitarian interpretation of nature.’


  1. cdc: The pre-Adamic death of the higher animals contradicts the character of God and the doctrine of blood atonement for human sin. The Bible does not attribute the properties of life and death to the plants and lower animals. …

cdc has always claimed that plants are never called nephesh chayyāh (transliteration of the Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה in Genesis), meaning that their life and death is qualitatively different. This is shown by the vegetarianism of both humans and animals in both the pre-Fall world (Genesis 1:29–30) and in the Restored state (Isaiah 11:6–9, 65:25).

  1. dac: The pre-Adamic death of higher animals is consistent with a loving, merciful Creator …

Tell that to the animals with their flesh torn apart and ravaged with disease, i.e. that it is still a ‘very good’ creation, rather than a sin-cursed world.

dac … and in no way impinges upon the doctrine of blood atonement for human sin. The Bible does attribute the properties of life and death to both the plants and the lower animals.

Wrong. Any billions-of-years compromise entails that death and suffering were always part of God’s creation, and this is inconsistent with the Bible historical accounting of creation.

Ten Major Similarities

cdc and I would agree with all 10 of the following , however I doubt that we understand them the same way as dac .

  1. The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

Agree with the sentiment. I prefer to say ‘plainly’, which incorporates a literal interpretation of a literal context, poetic interpretation of poetic context. dac would probably have no objection to that, and ‘literal’ is an acceptable way of saying this, but using ‘plainly’ should hopefully avoid caricatures by theistic evolutionists. The problem is that dac has a strange understanding of the word ‘literal’ as shown above.

  1. The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship.

Definitely. However, while I have no doubt that dac believers publicly and sincerely defend the Bible against any error, in practice they impose secular ‘disciplines of scholarship’ over the Bible. The main differences are much the same as one key issue of the Reformation—Sola Scripture = Scripture alone. That is, the supreme authority, perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture. But dac claims: ‘God’s revelation is not limited exclusively to God’s words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible’ (Creation and Time, p. 56). These words alone show that dac in effect teaches Scriptura et scientia = Scripture and science. In practice, dac reinterprets Scripture in an unnatural way to fit in with the alleged ‘facts of nature’ (really uniformitarian interpretations of nature), which is Scriptura sub scientia = Scripture below science.

  1. The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.

Yes. Alas, dac believes that God used the alleged big bang, an essentially atheistic notion by which most of its proponents assert the universe created itself.

  1. Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.

Yes. Secular scientific guesswork is just that- guesswork.

  1. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution.

No dispute there.

  1. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth.

However, Ross concedes much ground to naturalism, because he fails to allow for the devastating global Flood of Noah’s day, responsible for many of the rock layers and fossils.

  1. Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system.

True, but the dac believers again give a lot of ground to naturalism, essentially agreeing with the naturalistic ‘big bang’ and history of stellar evolution over billions of years.

  1. Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its context. It describes God’s ‘very good’ creation in the space of six days.

Agree with the words, but as shown above, dac believers do not think that they mean what they say! dac creation, pre-Fall is anything but ‘very good’. It has the horrors of death, struggle, suffering, disease and carnivory that we see in today’s world.

  1. Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago.

Yes, we agree that Adam was created out of dust, and Eve from Adam, with no animal ancestry. But by ‘just thousands’, we mean six thousand, as per a straightforward reading of the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11; dac believes it was many times as long ago, which entails inserting huge gaps in the chronologies of which there is not the slightest biblical evidence.

  1. All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

Agree, but we would regard those specimens classified as Neandertals and Homo erectus in that category, while dac regards them as soulless hominids.


Once again, dac believers have made misleading accusations against creationist believers cdc in an attempt to justify his own compromise position. dac has frequently misrepresented what the cdc believes in, and that their arguments do not hold up against Scripture. It is important not to be sidetracked by the dac appeal to ‘scientific consensus’, but always to stand on the authoritative Word of God, i.e. letting it teach us, rather than imposing outside ideas upon the text.


Higgs Boson Revisited

Higgs Boson Wallpaper HD - And now what

The Higgs boson is popularly referred to as “the God particle,” perhaps because of its role in giving other particles their mass. However, it’s not the boson itself that gives mass. Back in 1964, Peter Higgs proposed a theory that described a universal field (similar to an electric or a magnetic field) that particles interacted with. Don Lincoln, a physicist at Fermilab in Illinois, explained to ABC News, “It’s the Higgs field that gives particles their mass.”

The boson itself is more like evidence that the Higgs field exists. Lincoln says to think of the Higgs field and boson as water and waves. “Because you see the waves themselves, you know there’s water,” he said. “If we didn’t see waves, we’d always wonder if there was actually water or not.” Since physicists have seen a particle that looks a whole lot like the Higgs boson, they’re pretty sure that the Higgs field exists.

Higgs’s original theory made very specific predictions about the boson’s properties (like its electric charge and its quantum spin) as well as how it would interact with its environment (such as what types of particles it would decay into). Since last July, physicists have had their hands full, analyzing a newer and bigger set of data from CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. It was the LHC that first provided
researchers with evidence of the Higgs boson’s existence, and the new data fits in line with Higgs’s theory and provides even more evidence that CERN has truly found the Higgs boson.

The existence of the Higgs boson fills in an important blank for the Standard Model, a theory that explains the behavior of particles. Without proving its existence, mass could not be explained. “For a theory that describes matter, that’s a pretty big deficiency, (emphasis addded) “ said Tipton.

CERN is looking to do more with the Higgs boson than simply confirm its existence. Lincoln says that there’s a very large discrepancy that still needs to be addressed. The Higgs-boson-like particle observed at the LHC a year ago has about 100 trillion times less than energy than what the Standard Model predicts.

Gee, maybe the model needs to be revised if it is off by 100 trillion times and if you search for “images higgs boson” they are all artists renderings- no actual images from the so called discovery exist.