The Science of it All

Consciousness from nothing equals nothing

Consciousness from nothing equals nothing

This was posted on FB and I felt a need to respond.

“I was asked a question a while ago that I had no answer to. But then, the concept is just so bizarre there IS no answer. The question- “How did we get consciousness to come out of nothing?” The answer of course is that it didn’t. At least not in the timeframes required by this person of faith. Which is of course, immediate.
For those that have an open mind, this is pretty interesting”

No, there is no “missing link” in human evolution.

We have seen evolution happen. It is real.


When I saw this, I thought way this could end up being an interesting thread as the subject of “consciousness” is one of the most heavily researched field of study in today’s scientific community.  Instead, it was a typical bait and switch tactic.

Turns out all it is, is a rehash of the tried and true and worn out and out dated arguments for the 160 year old evolutionary theory that is promulgated in any 1990 high school science book.  The amount of new information in virtually all of the “hard” and “life” sciences is 100 times more than what was known when those books were written.  However, I understand, it is easier to fall back upon something that one is comfortable with than to reach out and try to understand the complexity of the current state of knowledge in these fields.

Therefore, I have written a few scientific FACTS which shows the lopsided bigoted prejudicial bent of the article mentioned above.

The first glaring error is committed in the first paragraph:

Anyone familiar with evolution knows that humans (relatively complex organisms) evolved from simpler forms of life over the course of billions and billions of years. Although we understand a great many things about how we evolved, there are a few gaps in our understanding. People sometimes refer to these gaps in our knowledge as ‘missing links.’

They are proving their assumptions (whether valid or not) in the first sentence- a logical fallacy.  The second sentence is correct – now, with all that we know, there are gaps in our understanding.  The last sentence is a fallacy of equivocation- the “missing links” are gaps in the physical fossil record, not our knowledge.  At 66.6% errors in the first paragraph, what is the probability that the rest of the article is accurate?

Further down is the sentence “But evolution is neither a ladder nor a tree.”  What is wrong with that?  Well that was terminology created by Darwin himself and his contemporaries Ernst Haeckel, Carl Linnaeus, Charles Lyell and others.  Modern scientists have not used that imagery for some 90 years now.

Later on, we have a paragraph that again makes a statement, lists its premises and then concludes it is correct to the exclusion of all other information:

“In short, there is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution. It is a very real scientific process that is accepted by the scientific community. No evidence refutes it. None. At all. But a ton of evidence and observation supports it.”

Notice the highlighted part.  Completely disrespects the hard work of thousands of scientists in many disciplines that have provided concrete evidence that should make all scientists sit back and reexamine some postulates that seem to be contraindicated by these new facts.

Then we have this dozy: “We have more fossil evidence supporting the idea that humans evolved from non-humans”.  Really

The classic book reviewing the evidence of human evolution is the book “Bones of Contention” by  Lubenow, ML in 1994 so let us examine some FACTS (which are true whether you want to believe it or not) instead of the suppositions espoused in the article.

He has researched the issue for 25 years writes with some authority on the matter.  He uses evolutionary theorists’ own dating scheme he exposes the impossibility of any connection of modern Homo Sapiens to the Australopithecines (Southern Apes).
“On the question of biological, especially human, origins, Lubenow is not content to merely quote biblical theory (if I may use that word). Like a true scholar he researches in depth the literature in the scientific journals, sifting the evidence, searching out the areas open to interpretation. . . . He does his homework so thoroughly that he makes someone like me who would carry on a dialogue with him (as we did on creationism vs. Darwinism) also do his homework. . . . He is a pleasure to fence with intellectually.”–Michael Charney, emeritus professor of anthropology, affiliate professor of zoology, Colorado State University.  Dr Charney became known as the forensic anthropologist who led the team to identify the 144 casualties in the 1976 Big Thompson Flood.

Lubenow shows (again using the evolutionists’ time scale and their own writings) that:

  • Fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 mya (million years ago) which is before Australopithecines appear in the fossil record. For example, he shows in chapter 5 and chapter 16 on p. 180 a discussion by HM McHenry about the Kanapoi Elbow fossil (KP271) is morphologicaly no different to modern Homo Sapiens. McHenry specialized in studies of human evolution, the origins of bipedality, and paleoanthropology.  It is interesting that Wikipedia does not show as his paper Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution, Science 190 (31st October 1975) p. 428 which many paleontologists have been unable to adequately refute publicly.
  • So-called ancestors to modern Homo Sapiens such as Homo Erectus are concurrent with Australopithecines and modern Homo Sapiens fossils.
  • There are no Australopithecine fossils in the right time-period to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans.
  • More disturbing though is the independent check that at the same location and in the same level stratigraphically are found two different types of human fossils supposed to be set apart by enormous time spans. In Kenya at the East Lake Turkana site called Koobi For a, the KNM-ER 813, 820, 1507 and 3883, which are supposed to be that of Homo Erectus, the ancestor of archaic and modern Homo Sapiens, altogether.

Verification of this comes from three well-established anthropological sources with impeccable credentials:

  1. Betirensmer, AK, and Laporte, LF, “Footprints of a Pleistocene hominid in Northern Kenya”, Nature 289 (15th 1981), 167-169.
  2. Wood, BA, Evidence on the locomotor pattern of Homo from early Pleistocene of Kenya, Nature 251, (13th 1974), 135-136.
  3. Feibel, CS, Brown, FH and McDougall, I, Stratigraphic context of Fossil Hominids from the Omo Group Deposits: Northern Tukana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia, American Jnl. Of Physical Anthropology 78, (April 1989) pp. 611, 613.

The more recent Neanderthal fossils (supposedly about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago) have again been found with modern Homo Sapiens fossils at the same site.  One of the most glaring examples of this is at the Tabun Cave in Mount Carmel in Israel where four Neanderthal fossils were found with two fossils anatomically like modern Homo Sapiens according to Corucini, RS, The Forgotten Skhul crania and the ‘neopresapiens’ theory, American Jnl. Of Physical Anthropology, 81(2) Feb. 1990) p. 209.

The religious fervor of the search for supposedly ape-like ancestors is bound to continue, so long as men insist on scorning the obvious reasonable alternative – that men were created Homo Sapiens from the beginning.

I’ll leave with a quote (not factual but based upon someone with a lot more information than I have) from Sir Ambrose Fleming, one time President of the Victoria Institute and Philosophical Society of Great Brittan, Fellow of the Royal Society stated:  “Whatever may be the effect on the religious opinions of adults or of scientific men of an adherence to this evolutionary theory of human origin, it is unquestionable that it is disastrous to the ethical development or spiritual life of the young or uneducated to lead them to believe that men are ‘descended from monkeys’ or that ‘chimpanzee or gorilla are man’s nearest relations,’ which is the form in which this theory takes expression in the general public.

“The reckless popularization of the theory of organic evolution without regard to the strong arguments which can be urged against it, constitutes a serious danger.

“Biblical teaching is not inconsistent with any definitely ascertained facts with regard to early mankind, when carefully interpreted.”

So, there you have it, facts and a clearly stated opinion based upon the facts OR the articles suppositions about what they want you to believe while assuming that you have not the intelligence to think for yourself.

The Science of it All

Teleonomy or Teleology

Teleonomy or Teleology

Richard Dawkins once said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  (The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1)  Famous words that have been brought back up to haunt him, way to many times to be counted.  Despite this “appearance of design”, Dawkins is, of course, a leading proponent of the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinian Synthesis of evolution, a mechanistic theory of population genetics and random variation by mutation.

In the Modern Synthesis, exemplified by his book The Selfish Gene, all purpose is illusory; there is only mechanistic process.  However much we might be tempted to believe that the human eye was designed for seeing, the view being propounded says no, the eye is an accident, and it persists only because its effect is to make it more probable that the corresponding genes will propagate to the next generation.

To most people this way of thinking is extremist and absurd.  The eye is for seeing, whether it has any effect on genetics or not.  However, this common-sense view has a problem: to say that the eye is “for” seeing is to say it has a purpose, a design; and purpose suggests an intentional agent, while design suggests a designer.

Darwin’s great contribution was to show, it seemed, that there was no creator, or at least that there is no need for that hypothesis.  Darwin destroyed Paley’s argument from design by showing there need not have been any designing.

The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator “based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world”.

Between 1785, when Hutton first presented his geologic paper, and 1795, when it was published as a completed book, he was busy writing books such as: Natural Philosophy (1792), Light, Heat, and Fire (1794), and Principles of Knowledge (1794).  It is more reasonable to class Hutton with men like Hume, Kant, Spinoza and Hegel, rather than modern earth scientists.

Hutton’s  geologic system was an outgrowth of his deistic religious views.  Given the preference of his intellectual heirs for atheism, they naturally rejected his heavy emphasis on teleology after suffering through William Paley’s apologetic published in 1802.  Ironically, Hutton’s arguments are similar to those used by many Intelligent Design advocates today.  Deistic teleology was the heart of his theory.   Earth was a divinely created machine, eternally cycling to maintain the perfect home for man:  ‘In Hutton’s view, the capacities of human thought and rationality alone gave meaning to nature; so a wisely designed world would necessarily make provision for the permanent existence of the human race, and hence for maintaining the habitability of the earth … . More specifically, the crucial material link between human life and the earth itself was the soil.’  (Rudwick, M.J.S., Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2005  ref. 4, p. 161)

As is typical of progressives, in the interests of avoiding confusion, evolutionists have tried to avoid speaking or thinking in a way that implies intelligent design.  For example, we are told not to think of complex sub-cellular structures as “molecular machines,” and we are told they are not like human-designed machines, which is the only way we have of trying to describe the incredibly complex organisms we are beginning to visualize.

Figure 1Transport Machine

Of course, to some extent this is true; there is no human machine (from the past, now, and now in the immediate or even far future) that can operate at such tiny scales in a wet environment and survive relatively hot.  Human machines are likely to be made of solid metal, not out of locally sourced, configurable, and recyclable proteins.  Most of all, human machines are not found in the context of complex self-replicating organisms which can undergo Darwinian evolution.

But are these really the kinds of difference that make a design not a design, or a purpose not a purpose  It’s just the opposite in fact,  the purpose is often very clear and distinct, and the design is almost beyond our abilities to comprehend,  certainly not beneath them.  The fact that these machines are assembled in a complex autonomous cell that can grow and replicate itself does not reduce the signal of design, but increases it.  Any human biotech firm would love to be able to create life; the design motivation is surely there, only the technology keeps coming up short and will be for a long while.

Biology is becoming more and more like an engineering discipline. Witness the rise of Systems Biology, the study of the complex integration in biological systems, which borrows heavily from the discipline of Systems Engineering.

It has become apparent that where evolution is observable and effective, it not only has a purpose — consider the evolution of antibodies in order to better bind foreign antigens — but also a corresponding design — consider the several components of the antibody genes, where variability is limited to specific regions in order to maximize the potential for matching new antigens and to minimize disruption to the rest of the structure.  Consider that natural selection is a “process” of stupidly waiting to see what dies, which may or may not even retain complex features (consider cave fish that lost their eyes), while sexual selection is an intelligent process — organisms purposefully selecting features, thereby directing the evolution of their species. Insofar as these behaviors are pre-programmed, they imply a design, and evolution is led by that design.

In contrast to the “Modern Synthesis,” these and other processes are often included under the heading of the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.”

In a paper (  in the journal BIO-Complexity, Jonathan Bartlett argues that these share a feature he calls “Evolutionary Teleonomy.”


So what is “teleonomy”?  Mainstream scientists continue to be philosophically allergic to the idea that design (the observation) is caused by design (the intelligent process), or too afraid to be seen to acknowledge it.  This has led to the coining of a new term and a new distinction: the hard-to-deny facts of biological purpose and design are now labeled “teleonomy,” while the contentious and frightening “theological” idea of a primordial actor or creator is now labeled as “teleology.”  Evolutionists loudly assert that teleology has long been discounted and now teleonomy takes its place.   All I am tryig to do here is to point out that facts have driven biology back towards notions of design, and mainstream scientists are going as far as they dare to bring back into biology thoughts that most of us already knew intuitively.

For living systems, this law still applies. That which is dead (such as a stick or leaf from a tree) has no information or teleonomy within it to convert the sun’s energy to useful work.  Indeed, it will simply heat up and entropy will increase.  After arguing that auto-organization by random processes may be possible in non-equilibrium systems, Prigogine (a physical chemist and Nobel Laureate noted for his work on dissipative structures, complex systems, and irreversibility) states: “Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.”    (Prigogine, G. Nicolis, and S. Babloyant, Thermodynamics of Evolution, Physics Today 25(11):23–8, 1972; G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine, Self Organization in Non-equilibrium Systems, Wiley, New York, 1977)



Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Rabid censorship = wikipedia

Rabid censorship

One of Europe’s leading paleontologists was just erased from Wikipedia … for doubting Darwin.
Here’s how it went down. It was the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species. Günter Bechly. set up a display at the highly prestigious State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, where he served as a curator. The display showed Darwin’s book on one side of the scales. On the other were ID books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, and others. Darwin’s lone book outweighed theirs.
Bechly the Darwinist was quite pleased with his little display. But then he decided to actually read the ID books–in part to be ready for questions from the media. He says what he found there was nothing like the silly caricature of intelligent design he’d been fed. After careful consideration, he rejected Darwinism. Not long after this he became a proponent of intelligent design and, some years later, he made his changed views public.
The Orwellian Empire Strikes Back
Bechly had done the unthinkable. A trusted curator of one of the most significant paleontological collections in Europe; a paleontologist who has named species, and had species named after him … a Darwin doubter? An ID proponent? Such a person is not supposed to exist!
And so the dogmatic Darwinists went to work disappearing Günter Bechly.
He was forced to resign from his position at the museum. And now this month, his English language Wikipedia page has disappeared. And no, it’s not a glitch. They admit to doing it intentionally.

The Science of it All

Why natural selection is not a factor in evolution

Why natural selection is not a factor in evolution

For all practical purposes, the important thing to understand is a new functional feature, a basic improvement in the status of the genome, produces no noticeable change until at least one individual with that genome has that new feature and has survived to pass it on to its offspring!  This means that natural selection cannot produce new functional features.  Natural selection only comes into play when a functional feature already exists in the genome.

By the time natural selection can begin to favor an improvement, that improvement has to have already been in the genome created by some process other than natural selection itself. It is common sense and is almost revolutionary due to the fact it has been ignored for almost over 150 years.  Let it sink in.  Despite all the grand claims of scientists and the millions spent on fruitless research and attempts to control scientific research so as to not allow any other ideas to be considered, the very logic of natural selection assures us that genome change has to considered as arising elsewhere. Because evolutionists have never agreed on what this elsewhere is, the gaping hole that has always existed in the middle of evolutionary theory is still there.

Dan Tawfik, Professor at Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel has stated, “Nothing evolves unless it already exists.”  Nevertheless, that does not stop the defenders of Darwinism from trying to generate scenarios to overcome this basic defect in logic.  We all know, according to them, that eyes and brains and a four-chambered heart were not created all at once.  Instead, according to Darwinists, natural selection has been making improvements on each and every part of each and every functional system since life began.

They have nothing new to do but regurgitate the same old stories that they have been refining for 150 years now.  They just cannot come to grips with the concept that something other than natural selection had to have created the new functioning system or change so that it could have an effect on the population so that the environmental conditions (or whatever) can then effectively work to select that change naturally.

Selection can cause a species to take genetic steps, but without any way of directing those steps, movement of that kind wouldn’t go anywhere.  To reach a new improved genome requires not just steps but coordinated steps, helped along by nicely arranged stepping stones (designed improvements to a goal).

For example, suppose that some biological feature—it can be anything but let us for the sake of convenience call it X— performs its particular function by utilizing a variety of functions  found in various other parts and features and components.  For X to do what it needs to do requires, a working A and a working B and a working C, and for B to work requires a working E and F and L and M.  In light of all these requirements, how could the evolution or design of X have come about by accident?  How was the appearance of all these necessary things at the right times and places coordinated, laying the stepping-stones to X in just the right spot at just the right time?  To say that each of the necessary sub-parts were selected for different reasons, and would miraculously be able to be used for another entirely different part,  is ignoring the incredibly complicated circumstances that would be needed for this happen.  Darwinists would have us believe (fervently) that  if a certain species would benefit from a working X then,  we are to believe that precursors to all the components needed to build X just happened to have been beneficial sometime in the past, each for its own reason.  And, that these precursors could have been changed by small modifications (for no particular reason) into their new X-critical roles just when X was needed.

Science, should view claims of helpful coincidences of this kind with suspicion. At best, they’re a misinterpretation of history, where selection— the sham hero— steals glory from an unnamed hero working behind the scenes to make everything come out right.

The Science of it All

The straits failed and flooded the Mediterranean

The straits failed and flooded the Mediterranean

A miembro de la familia to me wrote the following in response to a post I had made on a long running thread on his Facebook page.

Him to  Me   Well I believe atheist outlook on the flood would be the most accurate.  It’s a story, a fable, it could not have ever happened, and it has certain allegorical constants with which to learn.  See, that one makes a lot of sense and is believable in some way.  But there there is the submerged cities in the Mediterranean that sort of lend one to think the Straits failed and the atlantic flooded the then arid Med area.  See, there are actual scientific things that provide reasonable and logical explanations for certain things.

Me   “the Straits failed and the atlantic flooded ” It has been at lest 20 years since I’ve heard that fairy tale. It points out the problem with naturalists trying hard to come with something that might be possible, without considering the probability of it actually being able to occur.

Him   I guess the whole earth being flooded by 40 days of rain and everyone dying except One family is not a fairy tale, but a bona fide fact as defined by the bible. Yeah, that makes the most sense. It is the most logical story, explains completely all the other civilizations not existing at all, anywhere on the planet, how liquid water totally disappeared and why no other person anywhere had a boat. I agree with you, the biblical tale is the only tale to consider as being correct, inerrant, without a doubt, infallible and the true explanation of physics here on this earth. I mean, what else could it be?

Me   It is hard to discuss alternative concepts with someone who is so obviously biased and unwilling to even consider the possibility that something other than what they want to believe might challenge their preconceived concepts. I could write volumes (both pro ad con) about every statement between commas in your post. But why bother, no matter what scientific provable fact I can demonstrate, you will dismiss it- which seems to be the basis of your faith.

He replied with some of his usual rhetoric extolling his belief system and denigrating mine and I find it absurd to try to dignify his response any further.

Since I am currently studying Geology for my thesis titled: “How Abnormalities in the Long-age Geologic Column Infer a Short-age Hypothesis” I have recently studied the geology and the paleo-geology of this area, although I will not be using any of that information in my thesis. However, I thought I could discuss the facts and logical extrapolations here.  Facts are facts and they will expunge the basis for fairy tales.

Let us start exploring this fantasy with a little geology, the topology of the Mediterranean Sea.  The Eastern end of this sea (970,000 sq. miles approximately), having many small islands (over 3,000 in the entire sea) available between Greece and Turkey, down to Crete, and up to Italy.  On the western end it drops off from the southern edge of France and Eastern Spain and is deep along the Northern edge of Africa with it all coming to a jumbled mess it seems at the Straits of Gibraltar.

Figure 1

Before the opening of the Strait of Gibraltar, the Atlantic and Mediterranean waters were connected through the Betic and Rif gateways, which were progressively uplifted and finally closed during the Miocene (e.g. Weijermars, 1988; Benson et al., 1991; Krijgsman et al., 1999b; Martín et al., 2001; Duggen et al., 2003).

The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1,500 m (4,900 ft) and the deepest recorded point is 5,267 m (17,280 ft) in the Calypso Deep in the Ionian Sea which is just south of the heel of the boot of Italy.

The seminal paper on the Mediterranean Sea is “On the origin of the Strait of Gibraltar”  written by: Nicolas Loget  Enseignant-chercheur en géologie (assistant professor in Geology), Université Pierre et marie Curie; and  Jean Van Den Driessche  Professor Geomorphology and Tectonics Geosciences, Université Rennes in 2006.

Another extensive research paper is: Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review in  Quaternary International 449 (2017) 29e57.  You can look that up at and (download it with proper credentials) verify the long list of evolutionary luminaries that produced articles reviewed for this paper.

Figure 2

The desiccation of the Mediterranean during the Messinian supposedly induced a dramatic sea-level drop that has been estimated up to 1500 m below the current sea-level.  At that rate then, only the blue and bluest areas on the map above would still be salt-water, the rest dry or semi-dry land.  From the tip of Italy across to Sicily to the African mainland was probably livable space.  From Greece to Turkey a lot of what is now islands would have been small mountains and rocky territory back then.

A major consequence of this base-level drop was the strong re-incision of the rivers that were flowing into the Mediterranean, resulting in the cutting of deep canyons by regressive erosion all around the Mediterranean region, including the Alboran Sea (e.g. Clauzon et al.,1996 ).  Blanc (2002) proposed, by analyzing the morphology of the Strait of Gibraltar, that regressive erosion by an eastwards-flowing stream in the Gibraltar area was the main process by which the Strait of Gibraltar opened.

Figure 3

The large amount of shallow water here could be an indication of a massive fallout of the mountain on the southern end of Spain as well as the little range sticking up on the horn of Africa there.  However, that does seem like it would be a lot for the Atlantic to push through or, as the scientists seem to suggest river flow from these same southern mountains eroding away the opening.

Most interpretations of the Early Pliocene opening of the Strait of Gibraltar involve a tectonic process.  However, no tectonic structure of this age has been unequivocally documented that could account for such a hypothesis.  On the other hand, the sea-level drop of the Mediterranean during the Messinian Salinity Crisis has dramatically enhanced continental erosion and in particular regressive fluvial erosion.

Figure 4

Section A is the actual British colony of Gibraltar and where the famous Prudential rock is taken for their advertising.  Section B indicates one of the world’s most congested shipping lanes and it is not hard to image a land bridge of rocks across that area. Buuuutttttt…. It just does not look right. There are a number of videos on YouTube about it, and it is interesting that they all use different dates + or – a million years and some believe it dried completely, some only partially, etc.

Supposedly, the opening of the Strait of Gibraltar in the Early Pliocene allowed restoring the water exchange between the Atlantic and Mediterranean waters. Interestingly enough, the origin of this opening is not so much of a concern to the geological community. Because the Strait of Gibraltar is situated in a long-lived tectonic region, most studies have considered that its opening was induced by the collapse of a narrow graben related either to regional extension or strike-slip faulting (pull-apart basin) (e.g. Hsü et al., 1973b; Campillo et al., 1992; Kastens, 1992; Maldonado et al., 1999; Hodell et al., 2001 ).

Figure 5

Just image the bottom section being blue now as it is the waterway between the sea and the ocean.  However, to our knowledge, no major normal faults have been documented on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar to support these interpretations. Besides, that would not create a debris field which seems to exist in the square box in figure 3 above.

In the paper’s mentioned above  they show that there are no tectonic structures that could account for the opening of the strait by reviewing the previous works that were concerned with tectonics in the Gibraltar area and surrounding regions.

Two of the most notable Mediterranean civilizations in classical antiquity were the Greek city-states and the Phoenicians, both of which extensively colonized the coastlines of the Mediterranean in the 8th century BC.

Therefore, that is the facts, as interpreted by evolutionary scientists.  Now, let us add in what is generally considered the history of certain events that have occurred in the millions of year history of the earth.  The Miocene Epoch, earliest major worldwide division of the Neogene Period (23 million years to 2.6 million years ago) that extended from 23 million to 5.3 million years ago.  The Pliocene era is between 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago.  The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period, which occurred from  110,000 BC –11,700 BC years ago.

What have we learned: Evolutionists believe that the Mediterranean Sea lost approximately 1,500 meters of its depth for unknown reasons.  Some believe it was blocked from being filled by the Atlantic Ocean by some form of obstruction and it is generally assumed that a number of rivers eroded the blockage away.  NO, I want to repeat that, NO indication of any form of tectonic activity in that particular area during that particular time.

What can we assume or  presume from this information, reasonable or not:

  • Sometime in the past (unknown when) the Mediterranean Sea lost half to all of its water and then filled up again (unknown when or how).
    1. Most popular theory is the stream and river runoff into the Mediterranean was not enough to maintain the sea level. This would require one of the following conditions:
      1. This could occur without tectonic activity at the Straits of Gibraltar, but would require that the earth’s ocean levels also decreased until the graben between them was exposed.
      2. It is possible that tectonic activity occurred which we are unaware of and blocked the Straits.
    2. With no inflow from the Atlantic Ocean (for whatever reason), then the evaporation rate in that area would have to be more than the runoff from streams and rivers
      1. There could have been a sudden increase in temperature throughout the rest of the region to increase evaporation so that the sea level would fall.
      2. However, there would still be inflow from all the streams and rivers from the European continent and a few (mainly the Nile) from the African continent.
    3. The runoff from the European streams was decreased due to ice-age glaciations in the Alps area through Greece.
      1. Somewhat difficult to believe if it is so warm just a couple of hundred miles south to increase evaporation.
      2. Would not prevent runoff from the mainland of Spain and southern France.
    4. There was no precipitation what so ever for several thousand years, which is not within the realm of any legitimate theory.
  • Settlements apparently appeared in dried areas of the Mediterranean Sea.
    1. Length and time of settlements are unknown as well as occupants
      1. Along the northern edge of Africa
      2. In the Adriatic sea area
  • Possible along the what would be a mountainous region between Greece and Turkey
  1. Some archeological finds have indicated settlements
    1. All have been on edge of known fault lines or volcanic activity
    2. None have been near the deeper areas of the sea, all have been within the yellow/green areas of Figure 2
  • Core samples to determine baseline of Mediterranean Sea geology.
    1. According to the Quaternary International article (mentioned above) of 496 drill sites that were done randomly around Mediterranean Sea.
      1. Some salinity differences were noticed in core samples
        1. Differences found at varying distance from water surface
        2. Only 4% of samples matched salinity levels at same depths
      2. Core sample minerals from the Adriatic Sea and Aegean Sea differed significantly from samples taken off the African Coast at same level below sea level.
        1. This would lend credence to theory of plate tectonics between the continents.
  • Theories on how the Mediterranean Sea filled back up
    1. With a glacial Ice Age
      1. The ice gradually melted as an increase in temperature occurred and flowed down into the Mediterranean taking massive sediment with it
      2. This would require NO increase in temperature of the Mediterranean area itself to increase evaporation
    2. Without an Ice Age
      1. Temperature in area gradually declines so evaporation level declines
      2. Water fills from all natural stream and river sources and sea level rises slowly so that habitants can move freely to safety
    3. By Gibraltar Straits opening up
      1. Tectonic activity occurred opening graben
        1. Full flow from Atlantic to even Mediterranean at current level estimated to take 2 weeks
        2. Plenty of time for residents of low land to move to higher areas
      2. From erosion from streams of Spain to then force open graben
        1. Estimates of several months to partially fill Mediterranean then quickly after graben opens
  • Problems
    1. The Adriatic Sea is filled with sediment and slopes from the northern part to the southern part where it is deepest
      1. No indication of any river or stream beds in the sediment which would have occurred if the Mediterranean Sea had been empty and filled with runoff from streams
    2. The Aegean Sea is as deep as the bottom of the Adriatic and has no deep sediment covering it.
      1. Streams and rivers from around the Adriatic come from mountainous regions and should have a large quantity of large clasts among the uplifts of the sea bottom which is not apparent
    3. Highly unlikely any inhabitants within the supposed lowered Mediterranean Sea had to evacuate quickly.
      1. Likely, they moved steadily to higher ground as sea rose.
    4. A number of other problems can be brought up but I won’t delve into them
  • Alternative example exits that uses the possibility of a supernatural cause, but solves all the problems
The Science of it All

Can you ride a bicycle into the past

Can you ride a bicycle into the past?

Can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine?

Since 1986 when the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old That has been the figured used by all neo-Darwinists, materialistic and naturalistic evolutionary scientist since.  They came from the Jack Hills in Western Australia.

Geologist W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Geochemistry, Geology, Mineralogy)  wrote  in Nature (321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods.  One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.

Evolutionists have a tendency to hide and disguise information that counters what they want to prove.  This has been going on since 1986 on the age of the earth.  Wow!  That is a bold statement Larry, can you back it up.  Well, of course I can, otherwise I would not have made it.

The serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit, gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3  Common simple everyday logic should indicate that you would average all values together with a +- sign for standard deviation.  Not so Nature Journal They selected the one value and discarded all the other 139.  The other 139 crystals showed such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be ascertained from the data.

An unbiased observer (you, me, other non neo-Darwinists) would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal.

A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be un-datable.  An unbiased observer  (mentioned above) would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal.  However, these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data!  If a scientist in any other field did this, he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world.

I am currently studying Geology for my thesis in the Philosophy of Science titled: “How Abnormalities in the Long-age Geologic Column Infer a Short-age Hypothesis” and it has become very obvious that this is not an isolated case. I decided to bring it up because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge.

Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima printed in Nature (334:607–609, 1988). They found what would have been the world’s oldest rock crystals.  Except for one problem- when radiometric dating was used they unfortunately were too old!

They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that the diamonds were six billion years old.  But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old.  So Podosek and friends decided they had to be wrong.  However, they admitted, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.

These incidents (and many more, another I discussed at: ) clearly indicates two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.

First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter.  Oh, the science experiments I wish I could have fudged some of the figures on my lab experiments in college.  Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.

Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

When you try to discuss the matter with someone in the field, you generally get an question: “Do you have a better way.”  When you answer “No” then they shrug and reply “Until then, shut up.”

So only if you are a geologist can you turn time backwards without any official time machine.


  1. Uranium/uranium concordia—this method involves graphically comparing the 238U/206Pb ratio with the 235U/207Pb ratio.
  2. Uranium/thorium concordia—in this method the 238U/206Pb ratio is graphically compared with the 232Th/203Pb ratio.
  3. The rock unit involved is a metamorphosed sandstone (quartzite) in which the zircon crystals represent grains eroded from source rocks (e.g. granites) and deposited with the sand. Thus the ‘ages’ of the zircon crystals represent the ‘age’ of the source rock(s) and not the ‘age’ of the quartzite.


The Science of it All

Basic Geology part 3

Basic Geology page 3

I thought I would take a brief sojourn into the gem business; it is still about rocks, but a special kind of rock – an opal.  Opals have fascinated people for centuries.  As early as the first century AD, the Roman Pliny wrote of opals:

‘In them you shall see the living fire of ruby, the glorious purple of the amethyst, the sea-green of the emerald all glittering together in an incredible mixture of light”

Mark Antony loved them and it is believed he assaulted a Roman senator to get a particularly nice one.  Napoleon presented Josephine with ‘The Burning of Troy’, a magnificent red one.  Shakespeare called them ‘that miracle and queen of gems’ and Queen Victoria of Great Britain made the new discoveries of them from far-off Australia a fashion necessity.

Prized for their vivid hues, Australia’s renowned precious opals command high retail prices depending on quality.  The finest opals have become more expensive than many other gems, and Australia is responsible for approximately 70 percent of total world production.  Now that the preliminaries are over, let us get to the bedrock (pun again).

The opals are said to have formed approximately 30 millions of years ago, although the host rocks are all claimed to be more than 65–70 million years old.  Something odd about that, but I guess they could have formed later, as part of the rock since the chemical process could not have separated the rock.  Moreover, the ingredients of opal are commonplace stuff.  Water in the ground carrying dissolved silica (similar to the glass in windows) is believed to have seeped through beds of sand and grit, where the silica particles are deposited in cracks.  As the water subsequently evaporated, the silica particles became ‘cemented’ together to form the opal.  Light bending around the silica produces the variety of glowing colors.

Fossils have been found in host rocks that have not escaped the percolating silica-rich groundwater.  Occasionally, bones, seashells and seed pods are found fossilized by having been ‘turned’ into opal’s.  Perhaps the most famous example we have had is ‘Eric’ the pliosaur (a marine reptile), which was the subject of public fund-raising by The Australian Museum in Sydney in order to purchase the opalized bones from the miner who found them in 1987.  ‘Eric’ is said to be about 100 million years old.  In most people’s minds, because of these claimed time scales, and because of the almost universal perception/indoctrination that geological processes are almost always slow and gradual, opals ‘must’ have taken a long time to form in the ground.

‘Not so’, says Dr. Cram, an Australian ‘bush’ scientist who earned his Ph.D. for his opal research.  The scientific establishment (sticking to the long age earth, gradualist naturalism  has something to say about Dr. Cram.  Wikipedia has a listing for Opals and down near the bottom they talk about synthetic opals:

Opals of all varieties have been synthesized experimentally and commercially. The discovery of the ordered sphere structure of precious opal led to its synthesis by Pierre Gilson in 1974.  The resulting material is distinguishable from natural opal by its regularity; under magnification, the patches of color are seen to be arranged in a “lizard skin” or “chicken wire” pattern. Furthermore, synthetic opals do not fluoresce under ultraviolet light. Synthetics are also generally lower in density and are often highly porous.

Synthetic opals are opals that are created in a laboratory.  Most synthetic opals are difficult to identify from natural opals without laboratory tests, except for those made in China and Japan.  Other research in macroporous structures have yielded highly ordered materials that have similar optical properties to opals and have been used in cosmetics.[36]

[36] “Macroporous Structures, Metal Oxides, Highly Ordered”. Office for Technology Commercialization, Technology Marketing Site. University of Minnesota. 25 June 2010. Retrieved 8 October 2011

Notice where the reference is from.  I am not sure if they have ever had a geologist on staff- their web site does not indicate it.  Their entire existence is to take technology start-up companies and provide assistance to bring them to a fully-fledged company.  Why they would discuss artificial opals is anybody’s guess, unless Dr. Cram was not interested in flooding the market with inexpensive opals to make quick money for them.

A committed Christian, Len has discovered the secret that has enabled him to actually ‘grow’ opals in glass jars stored in his wooden shed laboratory, and the process takes only a matter of weeks!  Dr. Cram’s man-made opals are so good that even experienced opal miners can’t tell the difference between them and opals found in the ground.  Furthermore, scientists from Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) cannot distinguish Dr. Cram’s opal from natural opal even under an electron microscope—they look identical!

Therefore, it is decision time.  Who do you believe, the individuals from a far away university program dedicated to making money (and you have to wonder why no other prominent scientists would have made a statement) OR the miners, polishers and sellers of opals who say they cannot tell the difference. Who do you believe?

His goal has always been to find out how opal forms to discredit uniformitarian (slow and gradual) geological theories.  He believes (after lengthy examinations, experiments and tests) that opals took only a few months to form within suitable portions of the thick sediment layers laid down catastrophically during Noah’s Flood, and his experiments undeniably demonstrate that this was feasible.

All it takes is an electrolyte (a chemical solution that conducts electricity), a source of silica and water, and some alumina and feldspar.  The basic ingredient in Dr. Cram’s ‘recipe’ is a chemical called tetraethylosilicate (TEOS for short), which is an organic molecule containing silica.  The amount of alumina which turns to aluminium oxide determines the hardness of the opal.

The opal-forming process is one of ion exchange, a chemical process that involves building the opal structure ion by ion (an ion is an electrically charged atom, or group of atoms [molecule]).  The process starts at some point and spreads until all the critical ingredients, in this case the electrolyte, are used up.

Within a matter of weeks of this initial formation, the newly forming opal has beautiful color patterns, but it still has a lot of water in it.  Slowly over months, further chemical changes take place, the silica gel consolidating as the water is ‘squeezed’ out.

Dr. Cram’s can now ‘grow’ opal in natural Lightning Ridge opal dirt, the sandy grit in which the natural opals are found.  Once the electrolyte is mixed into the opal dirt, color starts to form within four to six days.  Seams of opal then actually grow, identical in shape and form to that found in the ground, some with color and some without, the process taking about three months.

Therfore, seam opal is not necessarily a sedimentary deposit in previously existing cracks in the opal dirt.  Rather, the chemical reaction which ‘creates’ the opal makes the seam from the opal dirt itself where no crack or seam previously existed.  Dr. Cram’s says this achievement is a ‘world first’, and that viscosity evidently plays a major role in this crucial ion-exchange process.

Dr. Cram’s experiments not only provide an explanation of how opals form, but the short timescale of only a matter of years is consistent with the biblical framework and can readily account for the field observations of natural opal in its host rocks.  Furthermore, this means that his short timescale also applies to the fossilization process.  The bones of ‘Eric’ the pliosaur (for example) need not have taken thousands or millions of years to fossilize.  The most likely explanation of their preservation via opalization is now therefore the same replacement (ion-exchange) process that Len has so graphically demonstrated in his glass jars, and that takes only months to years.

So the evolutionary ‘stories’ of opal formation and fossilization slowly over thousands and millions of years have to be rewritten.  Since pliosaurs and other creatures need to be buried catastrophically to ensure their subsequent fossilization, the rock layers hosting the opals and opalized bones are best explained by catastrophic deposition during the global Flood.  Chemical processes then took over to form the opals in the rock layers and opalize the bones in the months and years that followed.

<– Previous                         Next –>

The Science of it All

Basic Geology part 2

Basic Geology part 2

Let me digress a little and talk about erosion rates in two different instances:

The first one is personal: I had a Honda 90 motorcycle as my first vehicle, pictured below, and what memories it brings back.  I gave my brother Brent a ride on the luggage carrier down the alley and he was hooked on motorcycles ever since.

The brother of my first consort also bought one at about the same time and we used to ride around in the desert northwest of town along Skunk creek.  We would go up to Thunderbird Road that was just a two lane paved road and it had no bridge across the creek, just the road going down one side and up the other.

We would drive down it to Camelback Road and head back home.  Skunk creek varied in width from about 100 yards to 15-20 feet wide and 10 to 30 feet deep.  About half way between Peoria Rd and Bethany Home Road crossovers of the creek, it widened to a full 100 yards and nearly in the center was a little mesa about 15 feet tall.  Some of the bikers with much bigger engines would ram their way up the sides.  Scottie and I had too slowly wind our way up along a trail we created about halfway around the mesa.  It got us up there- so what if everybody else laughed.

A couple of years later, after several very hot summers, we had an El Niño or El Ninja or whatever they wanted to call it- it was supposedly a 100-year flood. I rode out on my new bike –a 750 Honda  which is what it looked like stock.

Close to what it looked like when I had finished working on it.  I did have a bigger fat-bob style tank that would hold 5 gallons.

Because of the growing population, most of the east-west major roads had bridge crossings at this time.  I was not going to take this bike out in the rough.  However, from the bridge, I was able to see that the little mesa was gone, the creek widened, and deepened considerably.  I had lots of time to reflect on the ride home to my second consort and it was amazing, 22 miles and never hit a stop light.

So what?  Well, let us see, this means that  Lyell’s 3rd rule Uniformity of rates of processes and by implication his 2nd rule Uniformity of geological processes are not really valid.  Big deal, it happens all the time in the dessert.  Yep, a couple years later they had a 500-year flood.  All I am saying is it does not always mean geological processes happen slowly.  Still do not believe me, let us try another example this time a little bigger- 16,000 square miles.

The Channeled Scablands are a unique geologic erosional feature that was created across eastern Washington and much of the Columbia Plateau.  This 16,000-square-mile drainage pattern, which begins in the northeastern portion of the state and exits at the Pacific Ocean, has a braided, gorge-like appearance with immense potholes, ripple marks, and hundreds of small lakes surrounded by flat-top mountains.  The landscape also comprises dry, braided canyons known as “coulees”— ancient ravines, basins, and dry waterfalls.  Grand Coulee Canyon, for example, is about 50 miles in length and one to five miles across.  All these unique erosional features are found several hundred feet above the present course of the Columbia River making it a puzzle as to how it could have happened, to long age geologists.

Search for images on Bing (please do not use Google-they steal all your information) for “Channeled Scablands” and the wide range of different types of landscapes is amazing.  So geologists have been absolutely confused and confounded by this area (one of many I will say) as to how it could have possibly occurred.

In the early 1920s, Dr. J. Harlen Bretz (1882– 1981), American geologist, first postulated that the Scablands were created by a cataclysmic flood that swept across the panhandle of Idaho, eastern Washington, and down the Columbia River Gorge and into Oregon.  The idea that land features such as the Channeled Scablands, Dry Falls, and Palouse Falls Gorge were the result of floodwaters was considered “outrageous” and “lunacy” by most other geologists.

Most geologists now believe the Channeled Scablands were created by the thawing of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet and a catastrophic collapse of a massive ice dam holding back waters of “Glacial Lake Missoula.”  The rising waters of Lake Missoula, covering over 3,000 square miles of northwest Montana (and estimated to contain half the volume of Lake Michigan), lifted a massive ice dam and allowed waters 400 to 600 feet deep to rush out with incredible force.  At over 50 miles per hour, floodwaters carved braided gorges and ravines in just a matter of a few days.

It took more than 50 years for these same geologists to lose their built in prejudices and realize the Scablands were actually formed by a catastrophic flood.  Dr. Bretz was recognized for his research and was awarded the Penrose Medal in 1979— the most prestigious honor in geology.

However, they continue to maintain the old age doctrine and believe this event occurred during the Pleistocene epoch at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age, about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.  Remarkably similar to the breached dam theory of the Grand Canyon, creation scientists maintain the scablands were created during the Great Ice Age approximately 4,000 years ago following a catastrophic worldwide flood.

From these two examples, we can come up with two simple principles: 1) little water, much time and 2) much water, little time.  If a flood of water on a global scale caused much of the erosion and subsequent deposition of sedimentary rock, it could have formed much more quickly than what we have observed in modern geological processes.  This is obviously an oversimplification of the complex geological principles involved in shaping our earth and it should not be applied uncritically.  Nevertheless, it is one way to begin defining the difference between the two theories of geological history.

Geologists call fast-flowing water a high-energy environment.  So let us create a little scenario of what we believe happens high up in a mountain valley.  Often there are spring flash floods with sufficient energy to carry large boulders down the stream.  As the slope gets less steep, the water flow rate and overall energy decreases until it cannot carry the large boulders, so they remain in the streambed.  Nevertheless, there is still sufficient energy to carry cobbles (rocks smaller than boulders) a few inches to a foot in diameter further downstream.  When the river enters the valley, its energy level (flow rate) is no longer high enough to carry even these cobbles, and the last rocks stop moving.  The water is then only carrying sand and smaller particles, and the sand being transported by the water is deposited, depending on the water speed at that point.

When flowing water is transporting and depositing sand, it makes ripples in the new sand deposits and the size and type of ripples varies according to the size of sand particles, water depth, and water flow rate[i].  Ripples made in a steady current are also different from ripples made by waves.  Waves that oscillate back and forth make symmetrical wave ripples— the crest is in the middle of the ripple.  Flowing water makes current ripples, which are asymmetrical— the crest of the wave is at the down-current edge of the ripple, giving that side of the ripple a steep slope compared to the gentle slope of the up-current side.

While this is going on, further up stream something else is happening to the boulders and rocks as they move downstream.  Rocks and boulders initially fall into the stream; they are generally irregular in shape and are angular with sharp corners.  Carried along by flash floods, they scrape against each other, breaking off pieces from the sharp corners and, they eventually become more rounded.  High in the mountains, some of the boulders might have come about five miles and are well rounded, but some might have come only one or two miles and are only partially rounded.  If a landslide occurred into the rapidly flowing water, they might not be sorted or rounded.  A deposit of these angular rocks in a matrix of sand or mud is called breccias.  Rivers and streams are generally flowing fast enough to keep most of the silt and clay in suspension.  Nevertheless, after the river flows into a lake, the water now has only very low energy, and the silt and clay are deposited in these low-energy environments.

Geologists call the low-energy environment of a lake a lacustrine environment, and the higher-energy environments of flowing water (rivers, streams, etc.) are called fluvial environments.  Some common depositional environments are deltaic (formed by river deltas), eolian (wind-blown sand), submarine shelf (deposits in shallow ocean water on the continental shelf), and deep marine[ii]. (Two different references there).

The types of minerals found in sediments may be important indicators of the depositional environment. For example, sediment containing calcite was deposited in a marine or alkaline lake or stream environment. Dolomite is similar to limestone but forms when magnesium is available in the water. The types of fossils in the rock tell much about the depositional environment as long as we are very careful in interpreting the data. Rock containing marine fossils suggests that the sediment was deposited in the ocean, and an interpretation of the original environment can be constructed. Fossils of terrestrial mammals suggest that the rock was formed in an environment such as a streambed, a lake (animals could be washed into the lake or even into the ocean), or a floodplain.  However, we would need additional evidence, including some detailed characteristics of the sediments and the fossil assemblage, to provide clues to the exact environment.

Size of clasts carried or deposited depends on energy level (speed of water flow). Distance of movement determines rounding of clasts.  Type of ripples is determined by particle size, water depth, and water flow rate.

I am going to stop this lesson at this point.  I will let you know the amount of material we have covered is about 1/3 of what was covered in my first lecture of Geology 101.  However, I want you to remember what it is I am trying to inform you about.  While I will not be able to prove a short-age earth, neither will the others be able to prove a 25.8 million year old earth.  Based upon the data, interpretations and analysis of a variety of factors I will be able to blow a lot of buckshot into their assumptions.


<– Previous Article                    Next Article –>



[i] H. E. Reineck and I. B. Singh, Depositional Sedimentary Environments, with Reference to Terrigenous Clastics, 2nd ed. (New York: Springer, 1980).

Brand, Leonard; Chadwick, Art. Faith, Reason, & Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design (Kindle Locations 9821-9822). Andrews University Press. Kindle Edition.

[ii] W. J. Fritz and J. N. Moore, Basics of Physical Stratigraphy and Sedimentology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988), 15– 20; J. S. Monroe and R. Wicander, Physical Geology: Exploring the Earth (New York: West, 1992), chaps. 6 and 7.

The Science of it All

Basic Geology part 1

Types and Processes for Rock Formation and Weathering

Why am I doing a dissertation on geology when my area of study is microbiology and the human genome?  Good question.  My understanding is that the geologic column is the foundation, the bedrock, (pun intended) of modern day evolutionary hypothesis or neo-Darwinism or “materialistic naturalism,” all synonyms for the old fashioned and now outdated “goo-to-you” evolution taught in our schools for the past 100 years. If I can start some cracks in the concept of the geologic column, it just might fracture completely (pun again).  Besides, it helps reinforce my concepts that the fossil record is woefully inadequate to explain anything, the geologic column is grossly distorted to match the scientist’s preconceived notions, and the Biblical concept of plate tectonics explains far more than any of the current theories do.

I have some experience in geology.  I lived in Phoenix most of my live and loved to get out into the desert and up into the mountains and the Mogollon Rim.  From Payson it looks like this:

From the edge of the rim, looking out it looks like this:

Javelina hunting in the Superstition Mountains, deer hunting in the Bradshaw Mountains and hiking the White Mountains was a wonderful way to see a variety of landscapes and marvelous geologic strata-not that I was fully aware of what that was at the time. Time marches on and I eventually moved to Texas, where the landfill for big Spring is as big as Scenic Mountain (which Payson has rocks as big as it is).

I worked for Pioneer Petroleum, in Midland, Texas, as computer support for their 3-D imagining department.  From reading in the images from the field, to watching them be transformed into 3-D images of the various strata of rocks underground and pools of oil in between the layers, it was very interesting work.  I also had the opportunity to watch as they removed core samples from a drilling site going down 2 miles.

We measured the distance of each stratum and drilled boreholes every meter into it.  We turned the borings over to the lab to be chemically analyzed for the type of rock, 14C levels, etc.  Therefore, I am not without some experience in the area, more than the average person is, but far less than someone with a degree in the field is.  With that background information, let us continue on our exploration.

The modern field of geology traces its roots back primarily to Charles Lyell, who developed the theory of uniformitarian geology[i].  This theory directly contrasted the theories of catastrophism and supernatural occurrences.  Uniformitarianism is the idea that by using observations of current natural processes, we can predict how processes occurred in the past.  In order to do this, we must accept that changes in nature occurring millions of years ago are similar to the changes that occur today.  First you have to believe in the long age theory AND believe that the environmental conditions today was the same as millions of years ago.  This is a problem for me as most evolutionary geologists and other related sciences believed that the early earth history was very traumatic and full of catastrophes- volcanoes, meteorites, and ice ages – in other words constantly changing.  Let us see if we can unfold the riddle of what the earth actually tells us.

Modern geological theory is a modification of Lyell’s uniformitarian views and recognizes Lyell was partly wrong.  The term “uniformitarianism,” as used by Lyell, actually includes four different concepts.  These four aspects of uniformitarianism with an evaluation of each are summarized in the following table:

Table 1. There are four separate concepts in Lyell’s uniformitarianism[ii]

  • Uniformity of law: This is a part of science in general, and not unique to geology.  It is still accepted that natural law is indeed uniform.  Water never flowed uphill in the past.  (If you are a Christian, it is interpreted as the Creator making a uniform and consistent world of scientific laws).
  • Uniformity of geological processes: The present is the key to the past.  The application of this means we do not invent unique processes if modern processes can explain the observations.  However, this is only partly valid; it is now known that the geological past was somewhat different from what we observe today.
  • Uniformity of rates of processes: Geological processes have always been slow and gradual.  There have not been any catastrophic geological events. This is known to be false but is still figured in their calculations.
  • Uniformity of conditions: Conditions on earth have always been the same, cycling endlessly with no direction.  This is not true and hard to support. Conditions in the Cambrian period, for example, were quite different from conditions today.  For example, our existing continents were largely covered with shallow seas during the Cambrian.  In addition, the fossils in different parts of the geological column are significantly different.

Different geological processes produce different types of rocks.  Simple to understand that.  Each rock type is composed of a particular combination of minerals, such as quartz, calcite, or feldspar.  Table 1 presents the three major categories into which rocks are classified.  The descriptive information is not specific to any one theory (MYA or short-age), but is part of the foundation for any geological theory.

Table 2. Types of rocks

Igneous rocks Forms as molten magma cools to form rock.

Examples: granite and basalt (volcanic lava).  A mass of granitic rock forms some mountains and underlies each continent.

Fossil Content: uncommon in igneous rocks, since hot magma would normally destroy any organisms.  Exceptions occur when lava or volcanic ash surround an organism and preserve it.


Sedimentary rocks It is a four-step process in making sedimentary rock that are erosion, transport, deposition, and cementation or compaction into solid rock.

Representative types of sedimentary rocks are classified by the size of the grains or particles that compose them: shale and siltstone— very small grains; sandstone— larger, sand-sized particles; conglomerate— a mixture of fine particles (sand or mud) and larger rounded pebbles (rounded by transport in flowing water); breccia— mixture containing angular (not rounded by water transport) pebbles or rocks; limestone— principally calcium carbonate, in the form of the mineral calcite (CaCO3) precipitated out of ocean water or alkaline rivers, streams, or lakes. Some limestones are an accumulation of carbonate shells or skeletons of organisms such as corals or mollusks.

Fossil Content: animals or plants are often buried in the sedimentary layers, and the majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. Even volcanic ash, which has an igneous origin, often is deposited as sedimentary layers. These layers of ash are effective agents for preserving fossils.


Metamorphic rocks Form when rocks are subjected to sufficient heat and/ or pressure (perhaps by burial under additional rocks) and chemical changes to alter them into a different type of rock. These altered rocks are metamorphic rocks.

Fossil content: any fossils are generally destroyed in the process of metamorphism



While the processes described in Table 2 are occurring, another significant process, called weathering, is altering the rocks- a minor point often ignored by long-age evolutionists.  Ground water and weak acids seep through the rocks, gradually breaking them down by chemical action.  The minerals are changed into (1) clay; (2) dissolved chemical ions including sodium, potassium, and calcium; and (3) quartz and other sand-sized grains.  The dissolved ions and clay are carried in streams and rivers to lakes and oceans, where the clay settles to the bottom in the quiet water and the ions determine the water chemistry in these water bodies.  The sand grains may be transported by water and/ or wind and accumulate to form sandstone formations given other conditions.

The average thickness of the sediments on all the continents is approximately 1,500 meters (.9 miles), but in some places, it is much thicker.  How long does it take to deposit such sediments?  The answer depends upon the theory of geological history you subscribe too.  Many state that radiometric dating provides an accurate, straightforward answer.  Radiometric dating will be considered further in another article with other geological evidence that challenges the time scale based on radiometric dates.

In the next article, we will consider factors that can have an influence on the rate of erosional speed.

<–Previous             Next –>


[i] C. Lyell and G. P. Deshayes, Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1830– 1833).

[ii] S. J. Gould, “Toward the Vindication of Punctuational Change,” in Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism, ed. W. A. Berggren and J. A. Van Couvering (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 9– 34.


Intelligent Design, Philosophy, The Science of it All

How did life begin?

The naturalistic origin of life is also known as abiogenesis or sometimes-chemical evolution.

The origin of life is an exasperating problem for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes.  Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution –it is a separate problem- once life began then it evolved.  Probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution.  The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.[1]  Some high-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins[2].

A well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the supposed topic of Darwin’s 1859 book).[3]

So, what do we need to get life?  How did life begin?

Explaining the origin of life by solely physical and chemical processes is proving to be extremely difficult.

First: What is it that we have to have to produce a living cell?  Well what is a living cell?  Basically, a living cell is capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its surroundings and reproducing itself.  We will not get into a discussion of what resources were necessary.  That is still debatable and under strong discussions in the scientific community.  We will assume that all of the necessary components (whatever they may be) were there in an available form to use.

Second: The first cell had to be free-living; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival because other cells did not exist.  (Some evolutionists try to state that a prokaryote cell ingested a eukaryote cell and then became a viable living cell.  However, this begs the question; they are already starting with a cell in one form or another). We have to stretch to imagination (well, maybe not) to believe that whatever process occurs, didn’t just happen in one area- maybe it happened a billion times over throughout the existing world. Too often, the Ider’s (Intelligent Designers) and creationists go with the concept that it happened once, somewhere, but it is possible that probably many different types of cells developed about the same time throughout the world and only certain ones survived.  I will not rule that out.

Third: Parasites cannot be a model for ‘first life’ because they need existing cells to survive.  This also rules out viruses and the like as the precursors to life as they must have living cells that they can parasitize to reproduce themselves.  It also brings up the question of how the parasite or virus developed.  Portions of genetic-like material may have been within the resources necessary for a cell to develop, however, the still would have needed a living cell to become activated.

Fourth:  Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease, have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only ‘replicate’ by causing proteins manufactured by an existing cell to become misshaped.  Fewer and fewer scientists are exploring this particular dead end street.

Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life-The so-called primordial soup has been the laughing stock of creationists and the wastage of millions of taxpayer dollars by evolutionists in attempts to create it.  For without it, their concept fails.  Below is how they would like to imagine it having happened.

I want to play fair.  NOBODY was there to know or understand what the start of our Earth was- if you are an evolutionist.  If you are a Christian it was Adam, but the exact details of the oceans, continent, and atmospheric conditions are not written down so it is guessed by both sides.  I will stipulate, as above, that the resources for the necessary components for life were available in whatever form necessary.

This then begins to bring out several problems though.  Some of the necessary components of life, have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids, and other amino (–NH2) compounds.  Such carbonyl-containing molecules include sugars, which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. (Sugars have linear forms that contain carbonyls—see Fig. 2 below.  The cyclic forms that occur in nucleic acids also predominate in solution form, but in equilibrium with the linear form. When something reacts strongly with the aldehyde, then more of the linear form is regenerated to replace that which is reacted, so all the sugar molecules will end up being consumed).  Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can even repair the damage when it occurs to the credit of the cell.  How this is accomplished in the natural resource environment we are discussing is anyone’s guess.

Cells are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals.  I am not going to cover every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take and has several books to cover the topic.  I will highlight some of the basic components that have to be present for any origin of life scenario.

a. Amino acids

Living things are loaded with proteins; linear strings of amino acids.  Enzymes are special proteins that help chemical reactions to happen (catalysts) without being consumed in the process.  For example, the enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and causes starch molecules from rice, bread, potatoes, etc., to break up into smaller molecules, which can be then be broken down to their constituent glucose molecules.  We cannot absorb starch, but we are able to absorb glucose and use it to power our bodies.

Some reactions necessary for life go so slowly without enzymes that they would effectively never produce enough product to be useful, even given billions of years.  In 2003, Wolfenden found another enzyme exceeded even this vast rate enhancement.  A phosphatase, which catalyzes the hydrolysis of phosphate dianions, magnified the reaction rate by 1021 times.  That is, the phosphatase allows reactions vital for cell signaling and regulation to take place in a hundredth of a second. Without the enzyme, this essential reaction would take a trillion years—almost a hundred times even the supposed evolutionary age of the universe (about 15 billion years)[4].

Other proteins form muscles, bone, skin, hair and all manner of the structural parts of cells and bodies.  Humans can produce well over 100,000 proteins (possibly millions; we really do not know how many), whereas a typical bacterium can produce one or two thousand different ones.

Figure 1. Leucine, (Chemical formula: C₆H₁₃NO₂) the most common amino acid, which is a specific arrangement of atoms of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and nitrogen (N).  It is essential in humans—meaning the body cannot synthesize it and thus must obtain from the diet.  In addition, natural selection cannot operate until there are already living organisms to pass on the information coding for the enzymes, so it cannot explain the origin of these enzymes to be used by other cells.

Actually, it should make one wonder about the faith commitment to evolution from goo to you via the zoo, in the face of such amazingly fine-tuned enzymes vital for even the simplest life!

Proteins are made up of 20 different amino acids (some microbes have an extra one or two).  Amino acids are not simple chemicals and they are not easy to make in the right way without enzymes (which are themselves composed of amino acids); see Figure 1.

The 1953 Miller–Urey experiment is still presented as having managed to make some amino acids without enzymes.  It is often portrayed as explaining ‘the origin of life’.  Although tiny amounts of some of the right amino acids were made, the conditions set up for the experiment could never have occurred on Earth; for example, any oxygen in the ‘atmosphere’ in the flask would have prevented anything from forming.  Furthermore, some of the wrong types of amino acids were produced, as well as other chemicals that would ‘cross-react’, preventing anything useful forming.

When Stanley Miller repeated the experiment in 1983 with a slightly more realistic mixture of gases, he only got trace amounts of glycine, the simplest of the 20 amino acids needed.  Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller’s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark.  However, on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays.

The origin of the correct mix of amino acids remains one of many unsolved problems.

Figure 2. Glucose, linear form.

b. Sugars

Some sugars can be made just from chemistry without enzymes (which remember are only made within the cells themselves).  However, mechanisms for making sugars without enzymes need an alkaline environment, which is incompatible with the needs for amino acid synthesis.

The chemical reaction proposed for the formation of sugars needs the absence of nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, because these react with the formaldehyde, the intermediate products, and the sugars, to produce non-biological chemicals.

Ribose, the sugar that forms the backbone of RNA, and in modified form DNA, an essential part of all living cells, is especially problematic.  It is an unstable sugar (it has a short half-life, or breaks down quickly) in the real world at near-neutral pH (neither acid nor alkaline).

c. The components of DNA and RNA

How can we get the nucleotides that are the chemical ‘letters’ of DNA and RNA without the help of enzymes from a living cell? The chemical reactions require formaldehyde (H2C=O) to react with hydrogen cyanide (HC≡N). However, formaldehyde and cyanide (especially) are deadly poisons. They would destroy critically important proteins that might have formed let alone poison the cell from inside if not neutralized correctly.

Figure 3. Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA. In this form of chemical diagram, each unlabelled bend in the ring has a carbon atom at the bend.

Cytosine (Figure 3), one of the five essential nucleotide bases of DNA and RNA, is very difficult to make in any realistic pre-biotic scenario and is also very unstable. I could write an entire chapter on how difficult producing a stable version of cytosine is – maybe I will some day.  DNA and RNA also have backbones of alternating sugars and phosphate groups.  The problems with sugars have been discussed above.  Phosphates would be precipitated by the abundant calcium ions in seawater or cling strongly onto the surfaces of clay particles.  Either scenario would prevent phosphate from being used to make DNA.

d. Lipids

Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions.  The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.  Some evolutionary theorists will claim that some lipids came together and formed a bubble that contained some other proteins and amino acids and was the start of an original cell that grew big enough to divide for the efficiency of transport of nutrients within it.  Way too many ifs, ands or buts involved in this concept.

Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any of the possible necessary resource situations is a problem for origin of life scenarios.  The reason is high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds.

The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere).  Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.  This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.  Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.  a Professor of Geology and Biology  states “All phenomena are essentially unique and irreproducible. It is the aim of the scientific method to seek to relate effect (observation) to cause through attempting to reproduce the effect by recreating the conditions under which it previously occurred. The more complex the phenomenon, the greater the difficulty encountered by scientists in their investigation of it. In the case of the scientific investigation of the cause of the origin of life, we have two difficulties: the conditions under which it occurred are unknown, and presumably unknowable with certainty, and the phenomenon (life) is so complex we do not even understand its essential properties.[5]

Figure 4. A potassium transport channel from Wikipedia commons.  The red and blue lines show the position of the lipid membrane and the ribbons represent the transporter, which comprises a number of proteins (different colors).  To give some idea of the complexity, each loop in each of the spirals is about four amino acids.

Some popularizes of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube (mentioned above under Lipids).  However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions.  Such transport into and out of the cell entails very complex protein-lipid complexes known as transport channels, which operate like electro-mechanical pumps.  They are specific to the various chemicals that must pass into and out of the cell.  Many of these pumps use energy compounds such as ATP to drive the movement against the natural gradient.  Even when movement is with the gradient, from high to low concentration, it is facilitated by carrier proteins.

The cell membrane also enables a cell to maintain a stable pH, necessary for enzyme activity, and favorable concentrations of various minerals (such as not too much sodium).  This requires transport channels (‘pumps’) that specifically move hydrogen ions (protons) under the control of the cell.  These pumps are highly selective and are beyond the scope of this article-source for another probably.

Transport across membranes is so important that “20–30% of all genes in most genomes encode membrane proteins”.[6]  The smallest known genome of a free-living organism that of the parasite Mycoplasma genitalium, codes for 26 transporters[7] amongst its 482 protein-coding genes.

A pure lipid membrane would not allow even the passive movement of the positively-charged ions of mineral nutrients such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, manganese, etc., or the negatively-charged ions such as phosphate, sulfate, etc., into the cell, and they are all essential for life.  A pure-lipid membrane would repel such charged ions, which dissolve in water, not lipid. Indeed, a simple fat membrane would prevent the movement of water itself (try mixing a lipid like olive oil with water)!

Membrane transporters would appear to be essential for a viable living cell.

In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do.

Figure 5. The chirality of typical amino acids. ‘R’ represents the carbon-hydrogen side-chain of the amino acid, which varies in length. R=CH3 makes alanine, for example.

e. Handedness (chirality)

Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemical’s, being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that are mirror images of one another, this is called handedness or chirality (Figure 5).

Now living things are based on biochemical’s that are pure in terms of their chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. One problem though:  chemistry without enzymes (like the Miller–Urey experiment), if they can get anything to happen, produces mixtures of amino acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate reaction, for example).[8]

Origin-of-life researchers have battled with this problem and all sorts of potential solutions have been suggested but the problem remains unsolved.  Even getting 99% purity, which would require some very artificial, unlikely mechanism for ‘nature’ to create, does not cut it.  Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids.  The reason for this is that placing a right-handed amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape. None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.


[1] (accessed 17 October 2013).

[2] Myers, P.Z., 15 misconceptions about evolution, 20 February 2008,; Matzke, N., What critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack, Dawkins tries to deal with the origin of life in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, where he claims to ‘prove evolution’. See Sarfati, J., The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 13, 2010, Creation Book

[3] Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online at;

[4] Lad, C., Williams, N.H. and Wolfenden, R., The rate of hydrolysis of phosphomonoester dianions and the exceptional catalytic proficiencies of protein and inositol phosphatases, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100(10):5607–5610, 13 May 2003.


[6] Krogh, A. et al., Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes, Journal of Molecular Biology 305(3):567–580, 2001;

[7] Transporter Proteins in Mycoplasma genitalium G-37; (accessed 1 Aug. 2017).

[8] The ‘right’ and ‘left’ in terms of chirality refer to the position of the amino group (NH2) as displayed on a standardized diagram (Fischer projection) of an amino acid.