mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Robert Bass comments on the Earth's Age and Similar Topics
_________________________________________________________________

The following article is from a recent online debate and appears to
have been done off the top of his head, i.e. without looking at
references or anything like that at all:

Bob Bass writes:

I haven't seen the movie but I have read the transcript of the entire
Scopes trial (and many books on it -- and several books on the recent
Supreme Court case "Scopes-2" such as those by Wendell Byrd [two thick
volumes -- containing written endorsements by Evolutionists as
"eminently fair"]).

If all you are insisting upon is the trivial fact that life has a
certain plasticity and variability within each (Biblical[?]) "kind "
-- such as what breeders can achieve with dogs & pigeons -- wherein,
in nature, Darwinian "selection of the fittest" visibly operates (such
as industrial melanism with Kettlewell's moths), then EVERYONE who is
not certifiably insane AGREES that "micro-evolution" is an established
fact -- but one of little significance.

People who doubt evolution are those who doubt MACRO-evolution, i.e.
that every form of animal life observed today had a single ancestor,
and that if we could line up the genealogy (as in the adult fairy
tales purveyed by LIFE-TIME books and all Established popular media)
we would see something recognizably "apish" or "monkeyish" gradually
having descendants who became more and more "humanlike" until Homo
Sapien Sapiens arrives on the scene.

I once read the book "Human Evolution" by UCLA anthropologist
Birdsell, and when he came to plotting cranial capacity of various
pongids/pithecoids/anthropoids as allegedly traced through time (using
conventional uniformitarian dating), showing australophithecus, homo
erectus, homo sapiens, etc. I had to laugh out loud because they were
essentially _parallel_ horizontal straight lines! Evidently some of
Birdsell's colleagues twisted his arm to fudge the graph lest he
confuse the laity, because in the Second Edition, using the SAME data,
he had fudged each line to tilt it upward going from left to right so
that the gullible could imagine that each cranial capacity was
"evolving to a larger size" and with glossed-over vertical jumps one
could be brainwashed into believing that modern man had "evolved" from
some more brutish creatures.

The Scopes trial shows clearly that the only reason that people who
fancy themselves scientifically enlightened is that the current
geological party-line is that the earth was once a molten ball, and if
you accept that, then there has to be an explanation as to how animal
life appeared on this ball after it cooled off enough to allow liquid
water.

Evolutionists DEFINE "scientific" as precluding "miracles" such as
"creation ex nihilo" (although the evidence for the Big Bang has
forced most astrophysicists to admit that time had a beginning and
that "before" this beginning neither space nor time existed, i.e.
there was at that ONE admitted "singularity" true "creation ex
nihilo"), and therefore they are forced by their assumptions to deduce
that life must have spontaneously arisen by "natural processes"
(meaning chemistry and physics as observed today). But this is simply
an aesthetic choice. People who want to push "naturalistic
materialism" as the ONLY metaphysic behind science are welcome to see
how far they can get with that arbitrary choice. But with only one
exception that I know of, the smartest of the atheistically inclined
(such as Sir Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle) all end up with
"directed Pan-Spermia" -- that is, life originated somewhere else and
was brought here by cosmic winds (Hoyle) or "space-alien
missionaries[!]" (Crick) -- because they can easily calculate that the
spontaneous formation of an information-containing molecule with
enough information encoded in it to survive & replicate would take
10^(10^(10^10)) years, i.e. is a practical _impossibility_. Richard
Dawkins admits the problem, but then fudges the answer with a
faked--up computer code which he convinces himself by wishful thinking
and lack of rigorous logic demonstrates that the probability against
spontaanneous biogenesis is not really as formidable as Crick and
Hoyle have long admitted.

I once studied carefully a lengthy book containing at least one page
on each, and careful photos and measurements of _every_ known fossil
alleged to have a bearing on human evolution. If you remove the
artist's reconstructions (which have time and again been discredited
by later discovery of more complete skeletons which show that the
artists were dreaming), and concentrate on the ACTUAL bones
themselves, you could put them all in one corner of a small trunk!
Absent the tendentious "reconstructions" of propagandizing artists, if
you could revive the actual creatures and see them in action, a child
could tell that (in the family of monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas,
etc.) they are just EITHER "extinct apes" OR "genuine humans" with not
the tiniest trace of any real transiitional forms between them.

All of the intellectually honest palaeontologists (such as Otto
Schindewolf and Edridge & Gould [the latter, with their "punctuated
equilibrium" using bafflegab to shield the public from understanding
their gigantic admissions]) have admitted in writing that the fossil
record is as complete as it ever will be and there is not the tiniest
trace anywhere of truly coercive evidence (as understood in the hard
sciences) that any "transitional" forms between the different
(Biblical[?]) "kinds" have EVER existed. The fossil record is just a
record of abrupt appearances, [allegedly] long persistences with only
trivial changes ("micro-evolution," like the beaks of Darwin's finches
or the protective coloration of Kettlewell's moths), and then
extinction. The connections are 100% imaginary and "projected" onto
the theory by the PRESUPPOSITIONS of the theorist. (In Eldridge-Gould
"punk-eek" the "macro-evolution" always takes place off-stage, which
invisibility they explain away wiith ad hoc arguments.)

If you are familiar with Cremo's book (denounced because he is a
Hinduism-convert and not because of any lack of coercive quality in
his documentary evidence) there have been fully human skeletons found
in EVERY stratum of the alleged uniformitarian past, no matter how
many "millions" of years one goes back; they also document the FACT
that in the 20th century these embarrassments are covered up by the
Establishment and not permitted to be published!

I once corresponded with an ex-Young-Earth Creationist (an oil
geologist) who said that he had suffered for his beliefs at the hands
of skeptical colleagues (eventually getting fired), and finally gave
up and accepted the "eons" of time orthodox geology. He challenged me
to explain away the varves somewhere that gave a continuous record of
20,000 or 30,000 years at some lake-site. I told him that at the time
I had no good answer, but would eventually get back to him. Now have a
_coercive_ quality answer. The Creationists took videos of the
environs of Mt. St Helens before it blew up, and then went back 10
years after it blew up, and then videotaped the identical areas to
show layers of thousands upon thousands of varves! (Apparently a
_daily_ rather than an "annual" phenomenon!)

Lord Kelvin stopped Darwinism dead in its tracks when he made an
irrefutable thermodynamic calculation that at the rate which the Earth
is cooling off (and heat is being conducted from the interior to the
surface and then radiated into space) the Earth could not possibly be
more than 2 to 20 million years old. This really put "the fear of God"
into the staunchest Darwinists for a while.

But when radioactivity was discovered, the uniformitarians rejoiced
because they had found a "new" source of heat to prolong the Earth's
life-span. But they _failed_ to repeat Kelvin's calculation, because
the results would have been too embarrassing. I once found in a
geology text-book an account of Kelvin's calculation, which (using
Fourier transform solution) I modernized by incuding on the right-hand
side of the equation as a "source" of energy inside the Earth the
_maximal_ modern estimates of abundance of radioactive materials
inside the Earth (which I got from publications by famed Princeton
physicist Dicke). Part of the reason that I was fired from BYU is that
I circulated a copy of my paper showing that with inclusion of the
heat sources which Lord Kelvin had not known about, the _MAXIMAL_ age
of the Earth gets revised upwards from his 20 Million years to only
about 200 Million years (a far cry from the billions proclaimed by
uniformitarian geologists who are about to experience a sudden fall
when my friends start to market cheap Rado-Shack type gadgets by means
of which high-school labs & home workshop hobbyists can cause Uranium
and Thorium to do ini 20 minutes what the Establishment claims would
take "45 billion years"!). [Stay tuned, o ye of little faith!]

The uniformitarian Editor of "Nature" has admitted that the rate of
efflux of helium from the Earth's crust into its atmosphere, and
escape from the atmosphere into outer space, sets an upper limit to
the age of the Earth's atmosphere at 2 million years (or more
precisely he called it the "biggest anomaly that had ever crossed my
desk" and others in numerous technical papers have worked out the 2
million years and admit that this is a "puzzle" and a "mystery" which
remains "UNEXPLAINED and will not go away!")

When geology-Ph.D. holding geologists (such as Dr. John D. Morris)
subject the Grand Canyon to an unbiased scrutiny, they find that the
strata on TOP are dated at eons older than the strata at the bottom!
This has been documented elaborately in papers, books and videos from
the qualified geologists of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR),
but this coercive-quality hard evidence has neither been rebutted nor
refuted, it is simply IGNORED because "those jerks are Fundamentalists
anyway, so who cares what they say!" In the ICR books addressed to
trained scientists (not laymen) there are listed DOZENS of ways of
dating the earth's features (amount of time for all the salt to get
into the oceans by the rates that it is now getting in from rivers,
etc.) which come up with dates less than 200 million years (many of
them with ages less than tens of thousands!). This evidence has never
been refuted, merely ignored, but as a trained mathematician I know
that a SINGLE counter-example disproves any alleged generalization and
as a onetime Full Professor of Physics & Astronomy at a
WASC-accredited university I know that it is not science but
PSEUDO-SCIENCE to ignore a theory's predictions which are falsified by
experimental observations and unquestionable FACTS.

I am enough of a believer in "the scientific method" that I wold
believe in "stochastic macro-evolution" if there were truly coercive
evidence in its favor.

Instead, the whole idea is a house of cards held together by nothing
more than the RELIGION of "secular humanism" which is explicitly
atheistic _by definition_ and excludes the possibility of "miracles"
by definition.

OUTLINE OF REASONS for SKEPTICISM toward neo--Darwinian stochastic
macro-evolution:

1. Irreducible complexity [high information-content] at the molecular
level reqiures design (or waiting for a Hindu-style eternity to pass,
which is contradicted by the coercive evidence for the Big Bang);

2. Geological dating schemes are fundamentally flawed because

2.1 in sedimentary rocks the reasoning is circular and assumes that no
global catastrophes have ever occurred (contrary to evidence by the
formerly Establihment, now neo-catastrophist, Derek V. Ager, in his
penetrating book "The Stratigraphic Record");

2.2 in igneous rocks the radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed
because

2.2.1 results are often inconsistent; anomalies are not published;

2.2.2 Cook's nuclear physics proofs from coercive evidence pertaining
to the _three_ ratios one gets from the 4 dates obtained by
Uranium-Thorium-Lead dating of the same rock are consistent only with
hypothesis that rock was subjected to a neutron-flux (like spinning
the hands of a clock wildly) or other clock-resetting physical
phenomenon, namely the 3 ratios are what his nuclear physics argument
PREDICTED they would be if Uranium-Thorium-Lead dating were spurious!;

2.2.3 Brightsen's patent-pending process for radiation remediation
shows that radionuclide decay rates can be altered to instantaneous
decay by a passing photon of correct low energy (e.g. infrared-ray or
heat or lightning strike) and so "the most sacrosanct principle in all
science" is demonstrated by coercive evidence to be a modern MYTH!

3. the fossil "record" (assuming for sake of argument that
uniformitarian geological dating were correct, even though we know
that it cannot be) is clearly one of abrupt appearance, "long"
persistence with no significant change, and extinction.

3.1 the fossil "record" is demonstrably imaginary in many cases,
because creatures which we have been authoritatively told "have been
extinct for scores of millions of years" are sometimes discovered
still living on the Earth.

SUMMARY: there is not the tiniest scrap of hard evidence which would
suggest that "evolution has occurred" except to those who already
believe that the doctrine of the formerly molten-earth plus suspect
validity of creation ex nihilo REQUIRES them to _assume_ that
evolution "must" have occurred.

(But this is not an induction from evidence, it is a deduction from
tacit/covert presupposititions!)