Disposing of Millions of Years

The world is awash in references to amazing aeons of time. Dinosaurs disappeared so many millions of years ago. Natural features emerged another bunch of millions of years before that. Here a million, there a million, everywhere another million!

Now, why is speculative scientific thinking so obsessed with big numbers? Only a hundred or so years ago science didn’t need to think in terms of millions of years. Now it’s an obsession! What has changed? Has some new evidence come to light? No. All that has changed is scientific opinion.

Evolution Needs More Time

Before the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution time was not a big component of scientific thought. Processes were observed in the real world and the implications of those observations were extrapolated over historical events. Nothing around us necessarily needs time in bucket-loads.

With the advent of an evolutionary mind-set, with its necessary transitional stages, science needed more time. It needed time for the first life to emerge, then for the next form to develop, and then the next, and so on. Mutations and missing links all needed time to develop, gain ascendancy over the previous population, then morph into the next stumbling step of development.

Mathematicians calculate that there will never be enough time for the millions of changes needed to accommodate evolutionary process. Evolution is a miracle, in any time frame. But that doesn’t stop the converts from pressing their long-age message hard and fast.

With evangelistic zeal the proponents and converts to evolution slash millions of years in every direction, like a child with a tin of paint. We are all wet with the wonder of time. Nature films, information at national parks, biology text books, television programs and just about every place it can be put, there are messages about time, times and then another million times.

Lyell’s Blindness

Compounding the problem of time was the proposition by Charles Lyell that the world has operated under uniform, constant conditions through the ages. Lyell ignored the evidence and proposed an imaginary world where all geological processes are even. The theory is called Uniformitarianism.

Lyell’s theory was a boon to evolutionists who knew that they needed to push the calendar back a few million years to give them time to breed. They also had an imagination issue, imagining a slow progression from one creature to the next, until all were able to blossom from the one common ancestor. Thus they needed time.

Lyell chose to ignore the historical records of catastrophe, both local and more global. His theory effectively ignores ice-ages, meteorite strikes, droughts, floods, earthquakes and other catastrophes which science observes on a regular basis. Lyell’s blindness became the platform for Darwin’s own misinterpretation of data.

Evolution Has it Wrong

The reason evolution needs gobs of time is that it is built on an insane interpretation of the visible data. As I have pointed out elsewhere (see below for links to other posts on related topics) Charles Darwin was a good naturalist, as an observer of what exists. Where he dropped the ball big time was in interpreting the data he collected.

Darwin and others imagined a progression that links all kinds of creatures from one biological source. That is contrary to what was already understood to be true.

Creatures of All Kinds

Prior to the popularisation of evolution scientists took their lead on biology from the ancient Biblical account of God creating a set of creatures that were bound into “kinds”.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:24,25

The Hebrew word translated as ‘kind’ means that which is portioned out. It refers to species, as something assigned to creatures by God. The creatures were not all of the same species. They were not the same kind. They had natural boundaries to the biological nature and connections.

The limitations of kinds can be determined to some extent by the ability of creatures to reproduce viable offspring. Crossing horses and donkeys does not produce a viable offspring. The mule which results is sterile. The same occurs when a dog is crossed with a fox. Yet crossing dogs with wolves produces viable offspring which can reproduce further generations.

The observable science of breeding is evidence for the accuracy of the first chapter of the Bible. Observable science argues against the theory of evolution.

Watch the Time

How does the creation of kinds impact the issue of time? Firstly, divine creation of a range of viable and distinct creatures drastically reduces the more than millions of years needed by evolution to get to that point.

But the time frame is radically compressed yet again by the ingenious genetic miracle which God gave us. Built in to the DNA of each kind was a wide range of variables. Just as humans display diversity in skin colour, build, facial features, hair colour, ability and so on, without having to evolve from one kind to another, so too the animal kinds could quickly display their diversity.

In just one generation diversity of shape, size, colour, function and features could emerge. Siblings in one family could display quite unique qualities, as children in families or kittens in litters do today. Suddenly, then, all the diversity which evolution imagines requires long ages is on display in a few generations.

It’s Time to Tell the Truth About Time

Governments, schools, media and most social voices have taken up the chorus of “Millions! Millions!” The ubiquitous “millions of years” is repeated like a mantra by mindless devotees.

It’s time to tell the truth about time. Stop shutting down your brain because you have to make simple processes stretch over millions of years.

Fossils which protrude through multiple layers of other fossils, as is commonly found in coal deposits, show that the layers were not created over long ages. The eruption of Mt St Helens late last century showed how great canyons and other striking geographical features can be formed in days, not millions of years. Man made opals, huge stalactites formed in just decades and oil formed naturally in modern rubbish dumps all put a lie to the long ages. Today’s scientists have committed intellectual suicide, trying to force short processes into long, evolutionary time spans.

Excuse My Tone

Please don’t be offended at the strident nature of some of my expressions when I discuss this subject. As one who has suffered under the delusion of evolution and then struggled to open the minds of people who are choosing blindness for themselves I like to shake the tree a little. I want to grab people’s attention and get them to think for themselves again. I fear that some of the best minds on the planet are lost to the intellectual suicide which evolution demands of people today.

Links to Other Material

Other posts I have presented on related topics include: Despite Diversity Dogs Defy Definition; Darwin’s Case for Evolution Dissolves; Cave Man Proves to be Real Man; The Truth About Natural Selection. You can find these on this blog site: www.chrisfieldblog.com.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com

The Truth About Natural Selection

When Charles Darwin observed Natural Selection and proposed that it was the alternative to divine creation, the world stood in awe of his amazing insight. But I am here today to show that Darwin’s guess was completely the reverse of reality. Darwin was a good observer, but a failed prognosticator. He failed to interpret reality and he distracted, fooled or misled generations of the most brilliant minds.

So it is time to take stock of the truth about natural selection.

Diversity Observed

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both published their concepts of evolution in the same year. They had both travelled to strange and exotic places and observed creatures which were new to their audiences. The mystique of their amazing travels and the authority which they could purvey on the basis of their experiences outside those of other men, gave their ideas an undeserved level of credibility.

What Charles Darwin observed on his six year voyage as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle was ‘diversity’. He observed the same process which breeders had known for centuries.

The Bible records the selective breeding activities of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, almost 4,000 years ago. So the creation or refinement of diversity through breeding activities is nothing new.

Darwin observed finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, as if he was discovering something profound and new. He certainly was observing diversity and the results of selective breeding by the natural isolation of animal communities. In this work he was not remiss.

Natural Selection

Rather than selection by human agency, such as animal and plant breeders would do, Darwin celebrated nature’s ability to provide the selection process. Here, without human intelligence, the process took place regardless.

Darwin’s religious perspective (seeking to prove creation without a creator) prompted him to an interpretation that misled generations of the world’s best minds. Darwin, happy to find an alternative to the reality and presence of an all-knowing and holy God, postulated that ignorant and mindless ‘nature’ could take a hand in the selection process. This allowed room for something other than an intelligent and divine creator.

Here Darwin stopped being an observer and became an interpreter. But every interpreter is influenced by his underlying premises. No scientist operates in a vacuum, but in the context of his or her frame of reference. Darwin’s frame of reference was antithetical to true science. His religious notions, when woven with his scientific observations, took on a scientific significance that has beguiled the world ever since.

Now We Know

Darwin was blind to many realities which we now know. He considered the cell to be a very simple entity. We now know that the simplest cell is more complex than a modern highly integrated city. Darwin imagined that the fossil record held evidence it did not contain. Darwin imagined that such processes as sexual relations contributed to the process of transformation of the physiology of a creature (sexually transmitted physiology into adult organisms).

Charles Darwin was patently wrong on these and many other accounts. As a prognosticator he was a miserable failure. As a hypothesiser he was a miserable failure. As a theorist he was a miserable failure. He was a good observer and there he should have stopped.

The Underlying DNA

What Darwin did not know is that the underlying DNA code does not just describe the organism as it is observed and as it currently functions, but that DNA also contains a much more vast scope of possibilities for the organism.

From an evolutionary point of view each new and discreet function is seen as advancement. It is seen as the ‘emergence’ of something new.

And there evolution is patently deceptive and patently wrong.

Evolution seeks to explain the creation of new features. But that creation happened only once, by a supernatural act of a supreme intelligence. No evolution has happened in the beginning or since. No evolution will ever happen. It is a fool’s notion.

What is really happening is that no new features are created, but the features which have already been gifted into the organism’s DNA are able to be activated or deactivated by the breeding process.

Each new and discreet function within an organism is not a creative process but a process of activation or switching, so that previously unseen features are now displayed. However, there is no new information within the organism. Nothing new has been created.

That is why the evolutionists are at a complete loss to explain the ongoing creative process. There is no such process! Evolutionists point to natural selection, as Darwin did, with the religious conviction that such an invocation will bring along a favourable fairy to solve their problem. But they are empty handed.

Of Breeds and Breeding

Any breeder knows that while you may be able to cross come creatures sexually the new animal may be sterile. This sterility factor is the means by which scientists are able to identify the genetic relationship between apparently similar kinds.

The mule is an example of a cross that creates a sterile animal. Dog breeders have proven the wolf as the ancestor to the modern dog breeds by this sterility factor.

“A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)….”In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.

Note in the quote from Dr Fox that the wolf and dog can be successfully bred together (hybridised) but the fox and dog cannot. There is an underlying DNA connection between the wolf and all the varieties of dog. There is no underlying DNA connection between the fox and dog. By this it can be determined that the dog was not bred from the fox, but from the wolf.

Full Genetic Complement

Note also that the fully hybridised dog variety still contains “innumerable wolf genes”. Hybridisation does not even have to involve the “loss of information” which many creationists refer to. It is possible to have remarkable hybridisation of a species and yet to have the entire underlying DNA intact. The function is not necessarily the addition or removal of DNA elements but the activity of “gene expressors” which effectively flick the switch to turn on or turn off certain genes.

Thus Brisbin notes that there is no discernible DNA distinction between dog breeds, despite the obvious physiological distinctions which we readily recognise.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. … there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

The Truth About Natural Selection

Natural Selection is just a fancy term for breeding that takes place without human involvement. The truth about natural selection is that it is not in any way related to the mythical concept of evolution. Natural Selection, as is the case with all breeding and cross-breeding, involves activation and deactivation of the pre-existing, and continuing DNA information contained within the organism since the entire genus was created.

There is no new information. Darwin and all who follow after cannot postulate a valid scientific process for the creation of new information, because there is no such process. There never has been such a process. There is no need for such a process.

God created the vast library of genetic options into the various kinds when He created them and we have had much amazement ever since as we have explored the limits of that genetic variety.

Modern science attests to this reality. The DNA of dogs and the DNA of the Galapagos Tortoise are all evidence for initial creation.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com

Are Curses Genetic?

Now that researchers have been able to observe chemical changes within a person, directly linked to that person’s past experiences, there is a better understanding of how experiences can be translated into genetic changes. Those genetic changes may then be passed down to descendents.

Are these findings bringing us closer to understanding how curses are passed down from one generation to the next? Are curses genetic, and is there any scientific basis for understanding how they work?

I teach in my family seminars and explain in my flagship text, Family Horizons – Creating Families of Destiny (available from Family Horizons – www.FamilyHorizons.net) that the Bible teaches the reality of curses and of family curses. The Biblical case is for curses becoming part of the genetic inheritance of the family.

Here is a quick summary of some Biblical points to show that curses are genetic. At the giving of the Ten Commandments God specifically describes Himself as ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me’ (Exodus 20:5). This process is clearly one of passing to the children some form of curse or negative outcome, which continues for four generations. This is effectively a genetic curse.

When Eli the priest failed to give honour to God, but supported his sons’ evil activities instead, God pronounced a curse on Eli’s family that would be there ‘for ever’ (see 1Samuel 2:31-33). That curse was confirmed a few years later when the young lad, Samuel, first heard God’s voice. God told Samuel that Eli and his sons were going to die for their sins and that a curse would be on Eli’s family for ever (1Samuel 3:13).

Eli’s curse is that none of the males will grow into old age. They will all die in the prime of their life. This curse was not going to work for three or four generations, but would persist for ever.

Some evangelical Christians find it very hard to accept that curses could exist today. My answer is to ask, Is the curse of sin and death still operating in the world? The answer is, Yes. Where does it come from? The answer is, Adam. What is your connection to Adam? The answer is, I am his descendent. So, there you have it. Every evangelical clearly believes in family curses. We all believe that the curse of sin and death comes upon all people today, even after the resurrection of Jesus, as a curse we receive from our ancestor. This is a family curse!

Allow me to leave the doctrinal case there. The question I have posed is, Are Curses Genetic? Since the Bible clearly shows that they are, we should expect there to be some scientific clue to a physiological reality. That clue is now uncovered.

Since our DNA prescribes the range of options available to us in our species, and even limits us to the collection of features that have been successfully passed to us from our immediate ancestors, it could be argued that there is no real room for a ‘curse’ to impact the DNA. Dominant genes will assert themselves over passive genes. It is completely unlikely that some new gene will suddenly appear in the DNA as response to some ‘curse’ being placed on our life.

But genetics has moved beyond DNA as the sole prescriptor of our genetic options. Related genetic process work on the DNA to cause various genes to be activated (expressed), or not. A simple protein molecule might be all that is required to switch on or off some genetic capacity. The consequence can be such things as disease, mental instability, personality changes and so on.

Recent findings indicate that suicide is being triggered in some men who have been abuse victims in childhood. Brain research on 18 such men indicates that, while the essential DNA is OK, the methylation process accompanying gene activity is different in these men, compared with non-abused men.

This finding points to the importance of the switching process. A curse can theoretically be switched on or off in your life, by a basic act of cell chemistry. Your genetic DNA won’t change but the function of your genes will.

And that may very well be how God goes about the process of activating a curse in a person’s life, which is passed down through the family.

So, are curses genetic? I can’t be adamant in my answer, but I can see how it is possible in the light of current genetic understanding. One thing is for sure, family curses are Biblical and real.

My book, Family Horizons, does explain how to break curses. So please don’t have sleepless nights trying to protect your DNA from rebel proteins.

Genetics – Nurture or Nature?

A long-term debate has raged on the question of whether we are ‘born’ a certain way, such as happy, lucky, blessed or successful, or ‘made’ that way by our circumstances. Are we who we are because of the ‘nature’ of our being, such as something built into our DNA, or because of the things we are taught and the ‘nurture’ we receive in our formative years? This is the debate over whether it is Nurture or Nature that forms us.

Expert opinions and diverse theories have spoken to both positions. Life experience also argues both ways. We see people who seem to have innate advantage over others in the same situation. We also see how the right input makes a profound impact on people.

Elizabeth Kotlowski, in her book on Australia’s early history, points out that the convict parents of the colony’s children seemed irreparable in their nature, yet their children were recognized by an early judge as being of the highest integrity. This transformation was not embedded in the genetic ‘nature’ of the children, but came from the ‘nurture’ they received from the colony’s early church schools.

Similar transformation was noted by Charles Darwin on his second visit to Tierra del Fuego. He originally deemed the natives of that area to be so reprobate as to be incapable of nobility. On his second visit there, some years later, he discovered that the simple process of taking the Bible to these people had positively transformed them. Nurture, external impact from a quality source, has undoubted profound effect.

Recent genetics research now indicates a synthesis of the ‘nurture or nature’ ingredients. The science works like this. While we each have a unique DNA specifying our genetic potential and influencing all the many features of our being, we also have a unique set of control switches that activate or de-activate those underlying genetic choices. So there’s a double stream of genetic dice rolling that impacts who and what we are.

While the underlying DNA may prove to be strictly a matter of ‘nature’ – passed to us by our parents and resilient to the conditions under which we are raised – the genetic switches prove to be influenced by the ‘nurture’ we receive.

Recent scientific findings were reported in the Public Library of Science Journal, ‘PLoS ONE’. Moshe Szyf of McGill University in Montreal studied the brains of men who came from abuse or neglect backgrounds and who later committed suicide. These brains were compared with the brains of men who died of natural causes and who did not have an abuse background.

The genetic material of the suicide victims displayed changes in all 18 cases. While the genes were unchanged the related genetic material functioned differently. A cellular process called methylation, involving the RNA within the cell, is engaged in turning the genes ‘on’ or ‘off’. The observed changes in the cell indicate that the genetic function was being switched differently as a consequence of past abuse.

So, nature and nurture work together, not independent of each other.

Now that some discernible physiological change at a genetic level can be associated with nurture it will be interesting to see where science takes us in our further confirmation of what God’s Word says.