It’s going to be slow posting on spiritualselfhelp at the mo, as I’m still in the process of trying to figure out what God really wants from me, and where to turn my attentions next.
But I just wanted to share with you that the seismic and volcanic activity across planet earth is continuing to pick up sharply. Usually, there are between 8-12 magnitude 6+ earthquakes occurring in any 30 day period.
Between the middle of September, and the middle of October 2018, there’s been 30 6+ earthquakes striking, plus many more volcanoes erupting – including ones like Kadovar, which were listed as ‘dormant’ because they hadn’t exploded in a thousand years.
Pay attention to the news headlines about all the crazy weather and flash flooding going on, and you’ll see that many of the stories will include lines like ‘one in a thousand years occurrence’, or will tell you that the last time something as ‘dramatic’ as this occurred – whether it’s hurricanes slamming into the US, like Michael, or flash floods killing 30 people across Europe, particularly France – was in the 1800s sometime.
That’s not a coincidence.
The last solar maximum began around 1850, and we’ve had relatively benign, stable weather for the best part of 150 years, as a result. But now, we’re entering into what could very well be a severe solar minimum, and solar minimums affect seismicity, volcanic explosions, and weather, in ways that very few people are even beginning to understand.
(If you go HERE, Sacha Dobler has a very clear explanation of what solar minimums and solar maximums actually are, and some of the ways they can affect planet earth.)
So, the earthquakes and volcanoes will continue to pick up, and that will feed in to increasingly erratic weather patterns. Every time a volcanic eruption reaches up to the stratosphere, as happened with the recent eruption of Manam in Papua New Guinea, that saw a column of ash injected into the sky to a height of 50,000 feet, that can severely disrupt weather patterns.
It has to do with the sulfur particles contained in the ash, that then bind with water vapor in the stratosphere, and become what’s called ‘sulfur aerosols’ that reflect sunlight back away from planet earth.
Grand solar minimums generally coincide with much colder periods of time, and guess what? Parts of the US and Canada got their earliest snowfalls for over a century last month, and average temperatures for October 2018 already seem to be coming in on the much colder side.
We aren’t headed into a period of ‘global warming’, if anything, we are looking at a time of ‘global cooling’. And as more and more volcanic eruptions start to occur – also in the oceans, where there are an estimated 3.5 million submarine volcanoes that are barely being registered, let alone tracked for emissions of Co2 and eruptions – that’s going to lead to more crazy and erratic freak weather.
If you want to know why so many fish and marine creatures are dying off – it’s because the submarine volcanoes are erupting, and either boiling them in super-heated water or poisoning them with localized clouds of volcanic gases.
If you want to know why warm-water creatures like whales are being found swimming up the Thames – it’s because the oceans ARE getting warmer. Why? Because a lot of the submarine volcanoes that no-one talks about are erupting, and are degassing Co2 (and other volcanic gases) in huge quantities.
If you want to know why birds are dropping dead out of the sky, why aquatic fowl were found ‘poisoned’ after drinking from lakes in Winnipeg, and why rare waterspouts are forming off coastlines in so many different places at the moment – the volcanoes hold the answer.
There is much, much more volcanic activity going on – including ‘passive’ degassing of often toxic substances, from the flanks of volcanoes listed as ‘dead’ or ‘dormant’, and including geothermal springs, mudpots and geysers – than anyone official ever talks about.
But I think as we enter the grand solar minimum and more and more seismicity, volcanic activity and freak weather occurs, even the scientists will have to lift their heads out of the sand at some point, and admit that something is going on.
And that volcanoes, and not man-made carbon emissions, really hold the key to understanding our changing climate.
For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.
If you’ve been following this blog’s series on ‘the false foundations of modern science’ you’ll hopefully already have picked up an inkling of how all this ‘false science’ gets established in the world.
A researcher comes up with a theory or proposal that garners a lot of attention, and / or a lot of funding, and / or a lot of ‘political clout’ (for whatever vested interest reasons) - and then they build a big career, and a big reputation, and a big bank balance defending that ‘theory’ for all it’s worth.
Depending on who else thinks their theory is a good idea (regardless of whether the real facts or true science backs it up) any opponent to this theory will then usually have their career torpedoed, their reputations publicly trashed, and their credibility tarnished at every turn.
It takes a very strong person indeed to stand up to people who are ‘religious’ about their scientific beliefs, and who will stoop to any tactic to ensure that their version of events, and their interpretation of data is the only one the public ever gets to hear about.
We’ve seen this tactic play out with macro-evolution, with geology, with the infamous ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for mental illness, and now, we’re going to take a look at one of the biggest ‘false science’ scams of modern times: climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
The first thing to note is that climate change is real, and is happening all the time. There is no doubt that some parts of the planet are hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier etc than they were a few decades, or a few centuries ago.
No-one is really arguing about that.
But where the rub comes is that while the pseudo-scientific community - with Al Gore and ex-president Obama at its head - is loudly proclaiming that PEOPLE are to blame for the changing climate, and especially FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PEOPLE, the actual science paints a very different picture.
Before we continue, remember that so much of what we think is ‘proven’ in so many fields of science actually really isn’t. Also remember that vested interests manipulate us via the media into believing things that really aren’t true, for their own agendas and aims.
Between 2010 and 2013, the US government alone paid climate change researchers $64 billion. A lot of scientists, a lot of politicians, and a lot of companies have their fingers in that very big pie. Climate change is big business and great for your scientific career, if you happen to be ‘sounding the alarm’ on climate change.
But what’s really going on, what’s really causing climate change, and how did we get to this place where so many people are panicking over Co2 emissions? Read on.
CARL SAGAN AND THE VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY
Carl Sagan was a professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, and in 1974 he renewed official science’s attack on Immanual Velikovsky, and his ‘ridiculous’ theories that Noah’s flood actually happened, the bible’s account was literally true, and that the world had been shaken to its core a number of times in the last 8,000 years, due to ‘action at a distance’ events with enormous planet-sized comets.
So many of Velikovsky’s theories have subsequently been validated by science over the last 70 years since he wrote them, including his claim that Venus would be found to have a scorchingly hot temperature, due to it being a very new addition to the solar system.
(Velikovsky suggested that Venus only became a planet in our solar system within the last 3,500 years or so. Before that Venus had been the ‘comet’ responsible for wreaking utter havoc on the earth and the moon - as described in innumerable ancient sources and as evidenced by the geological record - and which had also stripped planet Mars of its atmosphere and water on one of its fly-bys.)
Of course, the suggestion that such cataclysmic things might have occurred within the modern age, or that all the theories of the world being many billions of years and uniformly ‘stable’ were anathema to the open minds of modern scientists like Sagan, so they used any tool they could to discredit Velikovsky and his ‘theories’.
The first space probe, Venera 7, successfully landed on Venus on December 15, 1970. It remained in contact with Earth for 23 minutes, relaying surface temperatures of 455 °C to 475 °C (855 °F to 885 °F). Before this information was discovered, Sagan and other NASA scientists were confidently predicting that Venus would have an ambient temperature akin to earth’s.
When the NASA probe reported back the shocking information that Venus was scorchingly hot - just as Velikovsky had predicted - Sagan et al went into damage limitation mode, and came up with the VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS theory.
Scientist Charles Ginenthal wrote a whole book deconstructing this hugely deceitful and fraudulent ‘theory’, but here’s the crux of the matter (as explained by a reviewer):
“Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings.
And NASA is still doing its best to try to link Venus with faulty climate change theories for earth, as this story from last year shows:
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable
Remember, false assumptions and beliefs in one area of science inevitably give rise to other false assumptions and beliefs, as this little snippet clearly demonstrates. The same ‘science’ that is telling us Venus is billions of years old is telling us that humans are responsible for disastrous climate change.
STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN
Even though Sagan’s greenhouse gas theory has subsequently been discredited for Venus, it sadly put down very deep roots in the nascent field of ‘climate change science’, as we shall see.
One of the main people pushing the issue of climate change was the so-called ‘father of climate change’ James Hansen. He bought Sagan’s false theory of greenhouse gases hook, line and sinker.
The following quote is from Hansen’s book called“Storms of My Grandchildren” end of chapter 10, The Venus Syndrome:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
How’s that for unparalleled scientific rigor? Hansen appears to have proven that the only reason Venus is a hot, barren hell-hole of a planet it because human beings were burning tar on it at some undefined time in the past…
This is the same person who wrote this in 1981:
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
And here’s what he told Congress in 1988:
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere.
Unperturbed by the lack of evidence to support his theories, Hansen has continued to churn out alarming soundbytes and scary quotes for the last 40 years’ or so, like:
“Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise.
Sadly, the internet is chock-full of quotes from Hansen along these same lines, but I picked these four out to show a few recurring themes:
1) Hansen’s language makes clear that anyone burning fossil fuels is akin to a Nazi, which seems to be an exaggerated comparison, even if you ARE a big believer in human-induced climate change.
2) This is much more about emotive propaganda than hard science.
3) There’s loads of false suggestions contained in these few sparse quotes.
Uh, really? Burning coal is giving my kid asthma? Where’s the studies that show that’s true? Uh, really? Natural disasters are being caused by burning fossil fuels? Where’s the scientific evidence for that big statement? Uh, are you sure that Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that this was known since the 1800s?
The ‘proof’ for that last statement, as referenced by the NASA website on climate change, amounts to this:
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Over on the website climatechange.org, a headline from May 2013 screams:
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
It seems to be completely lost on the author of this article - and the many climate change scientists he quotes (more on that in a moment) that if this is true, then human beings burning fossil fuels is clearly not the cause of climate change on planet earth…
But these are the types of obvious arguments that false science can never seem to wrap its head around. So instead, you get told pseudo-scientific guff like:
“While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
Once again, we see how the false beliefs in one field of science sow more false beliefs in other areas.
Climate change scientists make huge assumptions that ‘the rate of change taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past.’ But this simply isn’t true! Every time they drill more ice cores, they are presented with the EVIDENCE that the climate has changed rapidly in the very recent past. For example, this comes from the British Antartic Survey website:
Abrupt climate changes
Again, note all the usual assumptions about these changes ‘only’ happening in the ancient past, because modern science teaches that the world has been stable for millions of years (despite all the evidence they keep turning up that this patently untrue…) There’s no evidence for these statements, they are just beliefs.
And while we’re on the subject of ice-cores, this (from the NASA climate change website) explains how they date those things, again using the same assumptions that weather patterns have always been the same for millions of years:
“How old is the oldest ice core—and how do we know it’s that old?
Again, even a cursory reading of this paragraph tells you that the ‘science’ being used to date these ice cores is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions about the world always working the same way - which again flys in the face of the actual evidence on the ground.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR GLOBAL COOLING?
The last thing to share with you in this first post on climate change is that back in the 1970s, scientists started ‘alarming’ the world that the next Ice Age was imminent. Back in 1975:
Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it." On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".
In the 1980s, with James Hansen at the helm, the alarm about ‘global cooling’ gave way to an even more impassioned alarm about ‘global warming’. So what’s really going on? This comes from the Friends of Science website:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
In other words, the planet’s temperature is oscillating all the time, and there is no ‘unusual’ warming going on right now.
(I’m kind of ruining my own production here, but go check out the Friends of Science webpage called ClimateChange 101, as it presents a lot of useful information in a very easy-to-digest way: http://www.climatechange101.ca/)
THE MAIN POINTS SO FAR:
The scientific establishment is so wedded to the false idea the world is billions of years’ old, and that the earth’s climate has been ‘stable’ for millennia (even though both ideas are patently false), that they have consistently discredited any evidence that suggests that:
But I know, ex-President Obama said this about climate change:
“Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”
And no-one could accuse him of manipulating the public with mass-produced, deceitful soundbytes that didn’t stand up to any real scrutiny…..
So in the next post, we’ll take a look at the nuts and bolts of the ‘false science’ - and outright lies - that’s propping up the befuddled theory of climate change.
Again, no-one is claiming that climate change isn’t actually happening - that’s a straw man.
What is being very seriously debated is:
In 1949, one Professor M Ewing from Columbia University set out with a team of researchers to go and take a closer look at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Amongst other things, the team used sound echo equipment to measure the depth of the sediment on the ocean floor - something they expected to be many thousands of feet thick.
Ocean sediment is typically made up of all the millions and billions of microscopic creatures that live and then die in the oceans - called ‘foraminifera’ - amongst other things. The skeletons of these microscopic creatures very slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, and become sediment.
According to Professor Ewing, other things that add to the sediment on the ocean floor are volcanic dust, wind-blown soil and “the ashes of burned-out meteorites and cosmic dust from outer space sifting constantly down upon the earth.”
If the world was really billions of years old, as claimed, there should be miles of sediment at the bottom of the sea. But that’s not what Professor Ewing and his researchers found when they started measuring it. Writing in: “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ride” in National Geographic in 1949, Professor Ewing said:
“Surprisingly, we have found that in the great flat basins on either side of the Ridge, this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick…. Always it had been thought the sediment must be extremely thick, since it has been accumulating for countless ages (sic).
The lost continent of Atlantis, anyone?
Fast forward to July 2016, and researcher Isabel Yeo from GEOMAR's Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel took a team of researchers to the North Kolbeinsey Atlantic Ocean Ridge, around 500km off the north coast of Iceland, to start collecting detailed images of the ‘hundreds’ of deep water volcanoes - many of which are still live - scattered on the ocean floor there.
Yeo came up with a new method of photographing and dating the lava flows from these volcanoes, which are found between 7--2,000 metres below the surface of the ocean using ‘hydro-acoustic properties’.
The basic idea is that this technology hits the lava flows with sonar, and then analyses how much sound the lava flow reflects back. Yeo commented that her super-sharp images: “combined with the spatial extents of the flows, mean we can work out how much lava erupted where and when.”
As with all of these dating techniques, it relies heavily on a number of unproven assumptions, that Yeo identified in her paper presenting the findings:
“These calculations are heavily dependent on a number of assumptions including assuming that the sediment drape and the surface structure of the lava flow fields are homogeneous, that sedimentation rate is constant through time and that the effects of acoustic refraction within the sediment are negligible. Sediment thickness may be overestimated if the sediments are sandier than assumed.”
But the basic findings were still shocking enough:
Yeo found that these massive volcanic eruptions on the sea floor had all occurred within the last 4,000 years, and that the biggest eruptions and lava flows occurred 3,200 years ago.
But the sea held more secrets, too.
In 1947, a Swedish deep-sea expedition headed by H Pettersson, director of the Oceanographic Institute of Goteborg also found “evidence of great catastrophes that have altered the face of the earth.”
What did the Swedes find, to convince them of this? Here’s a small part of what they reported finding in Scientific American, in 1950:
“Nickel is a very rare element in most terrestrial rocks and continental sediments, and it is almost absent from the ocean waters. On the other hand, it’s one of the main components of meteorites.”
I.e. whenever a lot of nickel shows up, that’s usually a clear sign that a particular area or region got bombarded by a very heavy shower of meteorites.
All over the world, there is evidence that around 3,500 years ago, the ocean level suddenly and significantly dropped leading to the shorelines ‘emerging’ well over 20ft higher. Professor Reginald Daly, writing in Our Mobile Earth, said:
“Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of Eastern Australia, along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In all these and other published cases, the emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude.”
Daly thought that this came about due to a “recent worldwide sinking of ocean level”. Daly put the date for this huge upheaval at between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. This dating was subsequently confirmed by another researcher, PN Kuenen of Leyden University, who wrote in Marine Geology:
“The time of the movement was estimated by Daly to be probably some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Detailed field work in the Netherlands and in Eastern England has shown a recent eustatic depression of the same order of magnitude as deduced by Daly. Here the time can be fixed as roughly 3,000 - 3,500 years ago.”
I.e. exactly the time the Israelites left Egypt.
We’re currently in the Jewish year 5778. The Exodus from Egypt occurred in 2446.
5778-2446 = 3332 years’ ago, at the date of writing.
And you’ll recall that our Sages taught that when the sea ‘split’ in Egypt, the seas all over the world also ‘split’ at exactly the same time, which is how the nations of the world knew of the miracles that were being done for the Jewish people.
Wherever you turn, there is more and more evidence that the land became sea, and that sea became land across huge swathes of the planet, around 3,500 years ago - and that it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called ‘global warming’.
Here’s what Velikovsky has to say:
“Human artifacts and bones of land animals were dredged from the bottom of the North Sea; and along the shores of Scotland and England, as well as on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the sea, stumps of trees with their roots still in the ground were found. Forty five miles from the coast, from a depth of thirty six metres. Norfolk fishermen drew up a spearhead carved from the antler of a deer, embedded in a block of peat.”
Which dated whatever it was that submerged huge areas of Northern Europe under water to 1500 BCE - i.e., 3,500 years ago, when the Jews were leaving Egypt.
There is a huge list of locations in England and Wales which are home to recently submerged forests, which still have large trees somehow rooted to the bottom of the ocean floor, showing they were submerged only recently. These were found at:
In February 2014, a huge storm shifted a ton of sand shale off the Cornish and Welsh coasts revealing more of these ‘submerged forests’. One of the biggest forests is at Mount Bay, Cornwall, which contains a number of underwater oak, beech and pine trees, measuring between 3 and 5 metres tall.
Modern geologists grabbed the opportunity to use carbon 14 dating on the trunks, to date them - and again stunned the scientific community by coming up with a time period of between 4000 - 6000 years.
(You’ll recall from THIS article that carbon 14 dating is usually fairly accurate within the last 3,500 years or so).
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Frank Howie, Cornwall Wildlife Trustee and chair of the county's Geoconservation Group, said:
"The storms have revealed two to five metre trunks of pine and oak as well as the remains of hazel thickets with well-preserved cob nuts and acorns washed out by streams running across the beach.
All of this shows that very recently, much of what is now underwater was previously inhabited dry land. And that this massive change to the earth’s contours didn’t occur billions, or even millions of years ago.
It all happened within the last 3,500 years, i.e. well within what’s known as ‘historical’ times, and at the time that the Jewish people left Egypt amidst the huge natural upheavals that came to be known as the 10 plagues, and then received the Torah on Mount Sinai amidst more huge 'natural' cataclysms.
The Sahara desert is one of the largest deserts on earth, and it’s easy to believe that nothing ever existed in this vast, desolate space except dust, sand and wind.
Yet, many rock drawings have been found in the area which show herds of cattle and other animals, none of which are still to be found in the Sahara, and most of which are now extinct. These drawings were found close to Neolithic [concluding between 4500 and 2000 BCE, depending on the area] items of polished stone, including implements, vessels and even weapons, in both Western and Eastern Sahara.
The obvious conclusion is that the people in this area pastured a lot of animals in the area that is now the uninhabitable Sahara desert, within the last 6,000 years.
So what happened? Where did all the sand come from? Where did the all the open grassland and water go?
Firstly, let’s pin the dates of human habitation in the Sahara down a little more closely. Franz Karl Movers was a very well known orientalist, who maintained that the Saharan rock pictures had been done by the Phoenicians (L Frobenius and Douglas C Fox, Prehistoric Rock Pictures in Europe and Africa, 1937).
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about them:
The people of Phoenicia, who flourished from 1200–800 BCE, created a confederation of kingdoms across the entire Sahara to Egypt. They generally settled along the Mediterranean coast, as well as the Sahara, among the people of ancient Libya, who were the ancestors of people who speak Berber languages in North Africa and the Sahara today, including the Tuareg of the central Sahara.
One of the Egyptian pagan deities, Set, was also found drawn on a rock in the Sahara, together with horse-drawn war chariots. No horse could last more than two days in the present arid conditions of the Sahara desert.
So what happened, and when did it occur?
Yet again, the versions of events told by modern science itself simply doesn’t add up. The ‘official’ version of events, given in the Encylopedia Britannica, ponderously states that:
“Long before recorded history, the Sahara was evidently more widely occupied. Stone artifacts, fossils, and rock art, widely scattered through regions now far too dry for occupation, reveal the former human presence, together with that of game animals, including antelopes, buffalo, giraffe, elephant, rhinoceros, and warthog.
Note the ‘long before recorded history’ bit that makes this sound like it happened eons ago, which is then contradicted by the last bit that explains that large herds of animals appeared in the desert less than 7,000 years ago.
But then, we have this from 2015, from Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who explained that most scientists today believe “the Sahara dried up due to a change in the Earth’s orbit, which affects solar insolation, or the amount of electromagnetic energy the Earth receives from the Sun.”
He goes on to explain that:
“around 8,000 years ago, the Earth’s orbit was slightly different to how it is today. The tilt changed from around 24.1 degrees to the present-day 23.5 degrees. Additionally, the Earth had its closest approach to the Sun in the northern hemisphere (with) summer in August,” Schmidt said.
Modern science itself is saying whatever massive catastrophe happened to dessicate the green steppes of the Sahara, it happened 8,000 years ago - not milllions, and not billions of years, but basically within the Torah’s timescale for planet earth.
To put this another way, we have a NASA scientist admitting that 8,000 years ago (sic) ‘something’ changed the earth’s orbit and affected the planet’s climate so greatly, a huge tropical land mass the size of Europe dried up overnight and turned into a desert.
How does this fit with the theory of evolution, and the principle of ‘uniformity’ that is axiomatic to so much of modern scientific thought? Clearly, it doesn’t at all.
The fossil evidence, and NASA, and the Egyptian / Phoenician influences in the Saharan rock drawings all suggest this Sahara dried out in historical (i.e. modern) times.
Let’s go back to Velikovsky:
“It appears that a large part of the region was occupied by an inland lake, or vast marsh, known to the ancients as Lake Triton. In a stupendous catastrophe, the lake emptied itself into the Atlantic, and the sand on its bottom and shores was left behind, forming a desert when tectonic movements sealed off the springs that fed the lake. The land of ‘pastures and forests’ became a desert of sand.”
Lake Tritonis was a large body of fresh water in northern Africa that was described in many ancient texts. Classical-era Greek writers placed the lake in what today is southern Tunisia. In details of the late myths and personal observations related by these historians, the lake was said to be named after Triton.
Velikovsky originally wrote this in 1955, and was ridiculed by nearly all the scientists of his day. Guess what scientists working with Nasa discovered seven years ago, in 2010?
“Beneath the sands of the Sahara Desert scientists have discovered evidence of a prehistoric megalake. Formed some 250,000 [sic] years ago when the Nile River pushed through a low channel near Wadi Tushka, it flooded the eastern Sahara, creating a lake that at its highest level covered more than 42,000 square miles.
This ‘megalake’ was written up in Geology magazine in 2010, here: Evidence for Pleistocene lakes in the Tushka region, south Egypt. And do you know why that’s so interesting? Because according to Maxwell’s own account, this lake is ‘consistent’ with Neolithic and Palelithic settlements in the area. I.e. according to modern science itself, it dates to between 21,000 (sic) and 6,000 years ago.
So why are they skirting over the earlier dating - plus the huge number of historical accounts of a massive lake in this area - to claim these lakes are from the so-called ‘pleistocene’ era 250,000 years ago?
SAME IDEA, THIS TIME WITH THE ARABIAN DESERT
And it’s not only the Sahara desert that used to be lush, green pasture land and forest. We meet a similar story again, this time with the Arabian desert.
St John Philby wrote in his book Arabia in 1930 that it’s a:
“certainty beyond challenge that when the icecap of the last Glacial period covered a large part of the northern hemisphere (i.e. Europe), at least three great rivers flowed from west to east across the whole width of the [Arabian] Peninsula.”
Shortly after writing this, Philby returned to Arabia, to the ‘Wabar’ site. This is how Wikipedia describes his trek:
After a month's journey through wastes so harsh that even some of the camels died, on 2 February 1932 Philby arrived at a patch of ground about a half a square kilometre in size, littered with chunks of white sandstone, black glass, and chunks of iron meteorite.
More about the meteorites in a minute.
Similarly, Bertram Thomas wrote in The Syrian Desert in 1937 that Arabia was once home to a large lake, that somehow disappeared.
There’s another strange phenomena to be found in the Arabian desert, called the ‘hammadas’ - 28 fields of broken and burned stones which sharp edges and black scorch marks. Some of these fields are huge - 100 miles in diameter - and the stones are packed so tightly within them they’re almost impossible to traverse. (See the pic, above).
These stones didn’t come from a volcano - there is precious little lava in the hammadas, and also the area covered by the stones is too large to be accounted for by a volcanic explosion that flung a mass of stones to the earth.
Back in 1955, Velikovsky summised the following about the hammadas:
“It appears that the blackened and broken stones of the harras [hammadas] are trains of meteorites, scorched in their passage through the atmosphere, that broke during their fall… or on reaching the ground. Billions of stones in a single harra indicate that the trains of meteorites were very large, and can be classified as comets.”
In 1966, a journalist working for National Geographic, Thomas J Abercrombie, went back to Wabar, and found the ‘biggest iron meteorite ever found in Arabia…its weight almost two and a half tons.’ A couple more large meteorites were duly uncovered in the desert sands at Wabar, and recovered for analyses.
If you want to know what these meteorites might have to do with the ‘missing’ Arabian lake somehow turning into the current Arabian desert, read on.
This from Wikipedia:
“The layout of the impact area suggests that the body fell at a shallow angle, and was moving at typical meteorite entry speeds of 40,000 to 60,000 km/h. Its total mass was more than 3,500 tonnes. The shallow angle presented the body with more air resistance than it would have encountered at a steeper angle, and it broke up in the air into at least four pieces before impact. The biggest piece struck with an explosion roughly equivalent to the atom bomb that levelled Hiroshima.”
Once again, it stretches credulity that a ‘Hiroshima’ type blast - and remember, there were multiple pieces of meteorite that impacted the Arabian peninsula at the same time, we’re only talking about the biggest piece here - could have occurred 250 years ago and none of the locals would have mentioned it or noticed it.
This might be the reason for the faulty ‘thermoluminescence dating’:
Thermoluminescence dating (TL) is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose, of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments). As a crystalline material is heated during measurements, the process of thermoluminescence starts. Thermoluminescence emits a weak light signal that is proportional to the radiation dose absorbed by the material. It is a type of luminescence dating.
But there was an historical account of a lush, green ‘Atlantis of Arabia’, which disappeared beneath the waves of sand following a huge catastrophe within the last few thousand years.
This from Wikipedia:
In 1930, the explorer Bertram Thomas had been approaching the southern edge of the Rub' al Khali ("The Empty Quarter"). It was Thomas' ambition to be the first European to cross the great sands but, as he began his camel journey, he was told by his Bedouin escorts of a lost city whose wicked people had attracted the wrath of God and had been destroyed.
Today, the Rub Al Khali desert is around 1,000 jm long and 500 km wide, and its reddish-orange sand dunes sometimes rise to a height of 250 metres. But sure enough, modern geologists have found ample evidence that in the very recent past, the area was home to a number of lakes.
This from Wikipedia:
“Along the middle length of the desert there are a number of raised, hardened areas of calcium carbonate, gypsum, marl, or clay that were once the site of shallow lakes. These lakes existed during periods from 6,000 to 5,000 years ago and 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. The lakes are thought to have formed as a result of "cataclysmic rainfall" similar to present-day monsoon rains and most probably lasted for only a few years. However, lakes in the Mundafen area in the southwest of the Rub' al Khali show evidence of lasting longer, up to 800 years, due to increased runoff from the Tuwaiq Escarpment.
(Very probably because they got completely pulverized by the multi ‘Hiroshima bomb’ type blasts…)
HIDING THE FACTS IN PLAIN VIEW
So, the scientists - lots of them - admit that the Southern Arabian Peninsula used to be lush, green areas covered with lakes, teeming with all sorts or animals, and lived in by human being between 2-3000 years ago (i.e. well within historical times - what’s being described post-dates the building of the Jewish first temple, in Jerusalem).
Then, everything changed overnight - but not by gradual drips and a creeping accumulation of sand. Rather, one big, ‘Hiroshima’ x 4 explosion hit the area, turning it into barren dust and desert overnight.
In 1966, they found four existing meteorites buried in the sand, but countless numbers more of them disintegrated upon impact and became the ‘hammadas’ or fields of meteoric rubble and scorched glass that litters the desert.
The following paragraph about the desert in question sums up modern science’s ‘schizo’ attitude to really understanding, and accurately dating, the history of the planet:
“It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago. However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.
All the hard evidence showing that people lived there in historical times, and all the fossil evidence showing the huge amount of recent flora and fauna in the area are tossed out because of faulty radiometric dating techniques that (apparently…) show the sand is seven million years’ old….
So how does that explain all the human settlement, and animal fossils, and 30,000 petroglyphs that date back to around 3,000 years’ ago? How did all that stuff come to be in a massive, inhospitable desert that’s 7 milllion years old [sic]?
It makes much more sense to say the following:
There have clearly been huge changes in the amount of water on the planet and in the atmosphere well within the last 6,000 and even 3,000 years. This will clearly effect the results for carbon 14 dating, and skew them to make substances being tested appear to be much older than they really are.
At the same time, any area that’s been hit with the force of (at least…) four Hiroshima nukes will clearly return very skewed data when it comes to other radiometric dating methods including thermoluminescence, which is what geologists typically use to date sediment and stuff like sand.
The Sahara and the Arabian deserts were paradises less than 6,000 years ago, and probably even less than 3,000 years ago. All this changed when the planet was hit by a meteor field that accompanied a massive comet, which came so close to the earth it ‘tilted the earth’s axis’ - there is no way this could happen from internal forces.
The last point to say is that all this completely contradicts the theories underpinning evolution, geochronology and the principle of uniformity.
Yet these are the facts.
So when are the scientists going to start figuring out this stuff for themselves?
Victorian researchers discovered a curious thing in the town of Plymouth, on the English Channel. Clefts in the limestone rocks there were packed with the bones of horses, polar bears, mammoths, hippopotami, rhinoceroses and bison.
To quote Joseph Prestwich, a geology professor at Oxford who was considered to the pre-eminent expert about the geology of the ice age in England, and who wrote something verbosely titled: On certain phenomena belonging to the close of the last geological period and on their bearing upon the tradition of the flood, in 1885, these bones were:
“broken into innumerable fragments. No skeleton is found entire. The separate bones, in fact, have been dispersed in the most irregular manner and without any bearing to their relative position in the skeleton. Neither do they show wear, nor have they been gnawed by beasts of prey, though they occur with the bones of hyena, wolf, bear and lion.”
This perplexing phenomenon was also turning up in coastal rock formations in Devonshire, and also in Pembrokeshire, Wales. Prestwich wondered in astonishment why none of these skeletons were whole, why they weren’t weathered, and why none of the bones had been gnawed by other animals.
HOW DID ALL THESE ANIMALS GET CRUSHED TO DEATH SO QUICKLY?
The animals couldn’t have just somehow fallen, alive, into these crevices. “The mere fall [would not] have been sufficient to have caused the extensive breakage the bones have undergone,” mused Prestwich.
And this wasn’t just something he was seeing in the British Isles, either. The valleys around Paris, and the tops of a number of isolated hills in France also contained a treasure trove of crushed and mangled animal bones.
Prestwich described ‘one very striking example’ in Burgundy, a 1430 ft high hill called Mont Genay, ‘capped with a BRECCIA that contained the bones of reindeers, horses and mammoths, to name but a few.
Breccia ( /ˈbrɛtʃiə/ or /ˈbrɛʃiə/) is a rock composed of broken fragments of minerals or rock cemented together by a fine-grained matrix that can be similar to or different from the composition of the fragments.
On another French Hill called Mont de Sautenay, located between Dijon and Lyons, French Professor Albert Gaudry found another fissure filled with animal bones. “Why should so many wolves, bears, horses and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?” Professor Gaudry wanted to know.
Prestwich was also puzzled by the fact that none of the bones showed any evidence of having been mauled by beasts of prey, or eaten by people. He wrote: “Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were particularly abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox and deer. It is not possible to suppose that animals of such different natures, and of such different habitats, would in life ever have been together.”
Yet, their remains showed they had certainly died together.
But what had caused their death? Prestwich conjectured that: “we may suppose all these animals had fled [there] to escape the rising waters.”
The same story was told again and again, as animal bones poured out of crevices on the British Isles, the French Mediterranean coast, on Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily and also the Rock of Gibraltar.
“The bones are most likely broken into thousands of fragments - none are worn or rolled, nor any of them gnawed, though so many carnivores then lived on the rock,” mused Prestwich. “A great and common danger, such as a great flood, alone, could have driven together the animals of the plains and of the crags and caves.”
When examining the ‘extraordinary quantity’ of hippopotamus bones that were found in the hills of Palermo, Sicily, Prestwich wrote:
“How could this bone breccia have been accumulated? No predaceous animals could have brought together and left such a collection of bones….The extremely fresh condition of the bones, proved by the retention of so large a proportion of animal matter show that the event was geologically, comparatively recent…the fact that animals of all ages were involved in the catastrophe” showed that it was “sudden”.
But what was the ‘catastrophe’ that could have caused such widespread destruction of animal life, so suddenly and violently? Prestwich believed it was some sort of enormous flood, or deluge.
“The animals in the plain of Palermo naturally retreated, as the waters advanced, deeper in the ampitheatre of hills…the animals must have thronged together in vast multitudes, crushing into the more accessible caves, and swarming over the ground at their entrance, until overtaken by the waters and destroyed…Rocky debris and large blocks from the sides of the hills were hurled down by the current of water, crushing and smashing the bones.”
THIS 'DELUGE' HAPPENED IN MODERN TIMES
And when did this happen? Not millions and billions of years ago, but in recent times, within the purview of modern man. Prestwich stated that it was “impossible to account for the specific geological phenomena…by any agency of which our time has offered us experience…The agency, whatever it was, must have acted with sufficient violence to smash the bones…Nor could this have been the work of a long time, for the entombed bones, though much broken, are singularly fresh…Certain communities of early man must have suffered in the general catastrophe.”
Let’s just pause here to remind ourselves that one of the two foundations of radiocarbon dating, of which so many of the claims about the ‘proven antiquity’ of the world rest, is that the amount of water in the oceans of the world should have remained relatively stable, to provide a fixed benchmark for the amount of time it takes radiocarbon to decay.
Here is clear, incontrovertible proof that THIS SIMPLY HASN’T BEEN THE CASE! And we’re talking about modern times, when our ancestors were walking around.
Prestwich - who again, was a professor of geology at Oxford University and one of the most well-respected geologists in academic circles - was of the view that something had occurred, within modern times, to cause the European continent to sink beneath the waves, to a depth of as much as 1000 ft, in some places, before the continent was elevated again.
He suggested that the time when this occurred - based on the geologic date he was encountering - was when Egypt was entering the Bronze Age (starting 3200 BCE), and Europe was entering the Neolithic Age - i.e. around a maximum of 5,200 years ago.
When does the Torah tell us Noah’s flood happened? In the Hebrew year of 1656, or around 4100 years ago - bang smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. (As a side note, the Midrash also says that the world was also partially flooded in the time of Enosh, too, and also at the time of the dispersion, i.e. after the tower of Babel was being built, so ginormous earth-changing floods are not an usual feature of the last few thousand years.)
THE CROMER FOREST-BED
There’s a forest bed in Cromer, Norfolk that kind of sums up the problem the British Isles poses to geology.
The deepest layer of this ‘forest bed’, as the name suggests, is a stretch of ground densely covered with tree stumps, often with interlocking roots, and mostly in the upright position. In the midst of this forest past, bones from sabre-toothed tigers, bears, straight-tusked elephants, rhinoceros, bison, plus glutton and musk ox (two species exclusively found in much colder, Northern climates) were all found mixed together.
How did a Tropics-loving elephant and an artic-loving musk ox come to be in the same patch of Norfolk forest at the same time, and to die there? What’s more, all the plants reclaimed from the forest bed showed that the climate and geographical conditions were ‘very similar to those of Norfolk at the present day’ (W. Wright, writing in the Quaternary Ice Age 1937).
The next layer above the forest bed in Cromer contained artic plants ‘such as to indicate a lowering of temperature of about 20°’ (Ibid). Then, there’s a marine bed which includes creatures that required a temperate climate.
How did all these various creatures and plants from across the globe wind up togehter in a forest bed in Norfolk?
Let’s quote Velikovsky:
“It would appear that this agglomeration was brought together by a moving force that rushed overland, left in its wake marine sand deep-water creatures, swept animals and trees from the south to the north, and then, turning from the polar regions back towards the warm regions, mixed its burden of arctic plants and animals in the same sediment where it had left those from the south.”
To put this into plainer English, the UK was hit by at least one massive tsunami, plus one defacto ‘ice age’ - which quickly disappeared as fast as it came - within the last few thousand years.
Geology Professor R.F. Flint, from Yale summed it up with admirable reserve when he said: “All in all, British glacial stratigraphic research has encountered exceptional difficulties.”
But those problems were by no means limited to the UK.
In the next post, we’ll see how these strange groupings of crushed animal remains were also found in many other places in the world too, not least the good ol’ USA.
In 1840, a young Swiss naturalist called Louis Agassiz published his new theory of ‘ice ages’, which was based on his observation of the glaciers in the Alps, which could advance or retreat a few feet a year.
Each advance of the glacial ice sheet would shove loose rocks to the side, forming ‘lateral moraines’, while those rocks pushed out in front formed ‘terminal moraines’. When the ice subsequently melted and retreated, these stone ‘moraines’ would - according to Agassiz - clearly show where the ice sheet had reached to, before retreating.
Writing in Etudes sur les glaciers, Agassiz stated:
“The surface of Europe, previously adorned with tropical vegetation and populated by herds of huge elephants, enormous hippopotami, and gigantic carnivore, was suddenly buried under a vast mantle of ice, covering plains, lakes, seas and plateaus.”
ICE AGES HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, NOT OVER A MILLION YEARS
But while modern science, with its axiomatic belief in the interminably slow pace of evolution, immediately rushed to state that these ice ages lasted for many hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years, Agassiz’ view was that they were catastrophic events: they took the world by surprise, began instantly, and lasted no more than a couple of centuries.
In that same work, Agassiz stated that these ‘mini ice ages’ came to an end when the ignaeous (i.e. volcanic, made of magma) interior of the earth began to heat up again, resulting in a great deal of seismographic activity, and a general ‘warming up’ of the atmosphere as volcanoes belched forth their fire, and new mountain ranges occurred literally overnight.
In Agassiz’ view, the Western Alps were younger than the frozen corpses of the mammoths that were still being dug out - and eaten - in Siberia.
While the proto-evolutionists, with the avowed atheist Charles Lyell at their head, rushed to adopt whichever parts of the ice age theory suited them, they discounted Agassiz assertion that ice ages came about due to catastrophic events, and were relatively short lived affairs.
Lyell conjured up a million year span for what Agassiz had termed the ‘Great Ice Age’ that he estimated had occurred between the Tertiary and Recent period (with absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up), happily claimed that these continental ice sheets were responsible for all those otherwise disturbing erratic boulders being found all over the place, and the evolutionary bandwagon rolled on.
According to Lyell et al, this new ‘ice age’ theory explained how 10,000 ton erratic boulders that clearly hadn’t originated locally had come to be found at the top of cliffs, and across oceans many thousands of miles away: the continental ice sheet had ‘pushed’ them there.
YOU NEED MOUNTAINS TO GET GLACIERS...
But not everyone was convinced.
One of the leading antagonists to theory of evolution, and to Lyell’s explanation of how erratic boulders had somehow been ‘pushed’ up mountains thousands of miles away by continental ice sheets was a man called Roderick Murchison, another leading British geologist and member of the Geological Society who was actually knighted for his contributions to the field.
In 1845, after Murchison had spent many months observing the erratic boulders flung all over the great plains of the Russian empire, Murchison wrote:
“Seeing that there are no mountains whatever from which a glacier can ever have been propelled in southern Sweden, Finland, or north-eastern Russian, and yet these regions are powerfully abraded, scored and polished” -
Something other than a slow-moving continental ice sheet must have caused these phenomena.
Murchison believed that the ‘something’ in question was probably some sort of huge oceanic eruption, or enormous tidal wave, that had perhaps been repeated on more than one occasions.
Again, let’s just pause to make the point that while we do see that ice sheets in the polar regions of the world expand and contract, these small, cyclical incursions and retractions have never been proven to have achieved even a fraction of the actions in the world that the evolutionists have attributed to them.
Just as evolutionists like to argue that ‘micro’ evolution - where a particular plant, organism or animal can and does adapt to its environment in small ways over time - automatically ‘proves’ that amoebas turned into human beings, the same enormous -and completely unproven - jumps in logic are also required for the modern ‘scientific’ approach to ice ages.
Let’s return to 1865, 25 years after Agassiz had published his ‘ice age’ theory to wide acclaim, where the now famous, senior naturalist was suddenly presented with a huge challenge to his theory.
HOW DID GLACIERS MAKE IT DOWN TO EQUATORIAL BRAZIL AND AFRICA, THE HOTTEST PLACES IN THE WORLD?
On a trip to equatorial Brazil, Agassiz noticed that all the things that he’d stated were due to drifting continental sheets, like drift accumulations, scratched rocks erratic boulders, polished stones and fluted valleys, were staring him in the face in one of the very hottest tropical regions of the world.
Agassiz’ woes multiplied, as more reports came in from equatorial Africa showing the same thing, and even more perplexingly, the marks in Africa and Madagascar appeared to show that if an ice sheet had caused them, this ice sheet had spread up from the equator to cover the continent, i.e. in precisely the wrong direction.
These remnants of ice ages past were also found in India, and again seemed to have spread from the equator up across the foothills of the Himalayas, and not the other way around.
Never people to let the facts get in the way of a good (God-less…) theory, the evolutionists did what they always do when faced with uncomfortable information they couldn’t begin to explain: they banished it millions of years into the past.
They decided there must have a number of other ice ages, millions of years ago, in the so-called Permian Age. Still, some rumblings of unhappy conscience still surfaced in the scientific community.
Writing in 'The Origin and History of the Earth’ in 1937, R.T Chamberlin said:
“Some of these huge ice sheets advanced even into the tropics, where their deposits of glacier-borne debris, hundreds of feet in thickness, amaze the geologists who see them. No satisfactory explanation has yet been offered for the extent and location of these extraordinary glaciers… Glaciers, almost unbelievable because of their location and size, certainly didn’t form in deserts.”
The ‘satisfactory explanation’ that would and did explain all these strange markings and other phenomena is that the African, South American and Indian continents had been inundated, on repeated occasions, by catastrophic tidal waves and flood waters that carried many millions and billions of tons of debris, rock, and vegetation before it.
But as that explanation didn’t ‘fit’ with the theory of evolution - despite being a perfect ‘fit’ for the evidence at hand - it wasn’t even considered by the ‘modern’ scientific community.
THE ONE PLACE THE ICE AGE DIDN’T GET TO WAS THE NORTH POLE
Other anomalies also started to accrue to the Ice Age theory, as the 19th century wore on. While Victorian geologists were detecting signs of ice ages throughout the baking hot heat of Africa and the Tropics, strangely, they couldn’t find any trace of them in places like Greenland, the Arctic Circle and Siberia.
Writing in Science in 1942, R.F. Griggs stated:
“The Islands of the Arctic Archipelago were never glaciated. Neither was the interior of Alaska.”
James D. Dana, an American geologist, also noted this bizarre fact, writing:
“It is a remarkable fact that no ice mass covered the low lands of northern Siberia and more than those of Alaska.”
Stranger still, Swiss scientist O.Heer found the fossilized remains of magnolia trees and fig trees whilst examining the plant fossils found in the Arctic region, during the 1860s, which he documented in his work called Flora Arctica Fossilis, published in 1868.
To quote Velikovsky:
“Forests of exotic trees and groves of juicy, subtropical plants grew in a land that lies deep in the cold Arctic and is immersed yearly in a continuous polar night of six months’ duration.”
And these wasn’t the only strange fossils that Heer was digging up in the Arctic circle. In Spitsbergen, in the Arctic Ocean, he found pines, cypresses, elms, hazels - and even, the fossilized remains of water lilies.
Spitsbergen also disgorged a bed of coal, 30 feet thick, which bore silent witness to the fact that the area must have luxuriantly and abundantly forested, at some point in its past. In 1882, Archibald Geikie neatly summed up the conundrum in his Textbook of Geology:
“When we remember that this vegetation grew luxuriantly within 8° 15’ of the North Pole, in a region which is in darkness for half of the year, and is now almost continuously buried under snow and ice, we can realize the difficulty of the problem in the distribution of the climate which these facts present to the geologist.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, vast coral reefs were also found in Spitzbergen, as well as around Greenland, Alaska and Northern Canada, now completely covered with snow and ice.
Corals only grow in the most temperate climates in the world. It’s out of the question that coral reefs would grow in a cool area of the world, let alone one where it’s permanent night for six months of the year and nearly always frozen.
How does evolution explain Spitsbergen?
It can’t. So the evolutionists pull their favorite stunt, and simply push the problem off to many millions, and even billions ago into the past. What can’t be explained by scientific rigor can be banished by the passage of time.
Yet there is an explanation, one that has been brought down in authentic Jewish sources over the last 5,000 years, and also hinted at by modern science itself.
Compare this description found in ‘The Mysteries of Creation’, By Rabbi Dovid Brown, which talks about ‘World Number 3’ that existed within the last 5777 years, and lasted between the time of Enosh to Noah’s flood:
“Sforno (Parshat Noach 8:22) explains that:
“So long as the axis of rotation remains in nearly its present position relative to the plane of the earth’s orbit around the sun, the outer limit of the atmosphere in tropical regions must receive more of the sun’s heat than the middle latitudes, and the middle latitudes more than the polar regions. This is an invariable law…It is much more difficult to think of a cause which will raise the temperature of polar regions by some 30° F, or more, while leaving that of equatorial regions almost unchanged” - CEP Brooks, Climate through the Ages, 1949
SUMMING UP THIS SECTION:
Evolution and ‘modern’ science has no explanation for how equatorial regions were apparently covered by icy glaciers in the past while the Arctic and Siberia apparently weren’t; or why tropical plants like magnolias and water lilies once grew in the frozen wasteland of Greenland, or how luxurious forests once grew in the heart of the permanently frozen Arctic circle.
By contrast, authentic Jewish sources and commentators have been accurately discussing these matters for thousands of years.
It’s clear that the planet’s axis of rotation has shifted over the last few thousand years, as clearly set out by these authentic Jewish sources.
As to HOW this happened in alignment with laws of nature, we will get to that part of the puzzle in due course. Before then, there’s still a lot more scientific evidence that I want to present to you, first.
One of the major 'foundations' of modern science is the axiomatic belief that the world has continued on, unchanging, for billions of years, and that all processes on earth - from ice ages, to mountain ranges forming, to so-called 'evolution' - all took billions and billions of years to occur.
As this is poppycock, there is ABSOLUTELY NO scientific proof to back up this belief in the principle of 'uniformity', to give it its proper scientific name. But there is tons and tons of evidence that points in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. that massive changes to the earth have occurred within the last 6,000 years or so, and that these changes have been swift and instantaneous.
Read on to see how modern science has been ignoring the evidence that argues AGAINST evolution and the principle of uniformity, for well over 150 years....
In 1940, F. Rainey from the University of Alaska described a curious scene unfolding along the banks of the Tanana River gold rush occurring at that time:
“Wide cuts, often several miles in length and sometimes as much as 140 ft in depth are now being sluiced out along stream valleys tributary to the Tanana in the Fairbanks District. In order to reach gold-bearing gravel bed and overburden of frozen silt or ‘muck’ is removed with hydraulic giants. This ‘muck’ contains enormous numbers of frozen bones of extinct animals such as the mammoth, mastodon, super-bison and horse.”
All these animals were shown to have died in recent times, measured in a few thousands, and not millions of years, even according to standard Scientific dating methods. Rainey found worked flints in this ‘muck’, including spear points that were found in situ stabbed through the jaw of a lion, or the tusk of a mammoth. He concluded that: “men were contemporary with extinct animals in Alaska.”
F.C. Hibben from the University of Mexico takes up the story:
“Although the formation of the deposits of muck is not clear, there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under catastrophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dismembered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain, in their frozen state, portions of ligaments, skin, hair and flesh. Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses… At least four considerable layers of volcanic ash may be traced in these deposits, although they are extremely warped and distorted.”
Clearly, whatever killed and dismembered millions of these animals, and uprooted and splintered millions of trees at the same time, was not a ‘gentle accretion of mud’, as the evolutionists would have us believe - and all this happened just a few thousand years ago, and was witnessed by human beings.
The Liakhov Islands are located 600 miles inside the Polar Circle, to the north of Siberia. Liakhov reported to his sovereign, Russia’s Catherine II that: “Such was the enormous quantity of mammoths’ remains that it seemed that the island was actually composed of the bones and tusks of elephants, cemented together by icy sand.”
The Islands of New Siberia were discovered in 1805-6, and were similarly found to be packed full of the remains of creatures who thrive in hot climates: “The soil of these desolate islands is absolutely packed full of the bones of elephants and rhinoceroses in astonishing numbers.”
How did millions of sun-loving elephants and rhinoceroses meet their death, and get deep-frozen, in Siberia? Some of these creatures were recovered with their eyeballs still intact: they were flash frozen in a matter of hours after dying.
Geologist geologist J.D. Dana wrote about this discovery:
“The encasing in ice of huge elephants, and the perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became suddenly extreme, as of a single winter’s night, and knew no relenting afterward.”
Writing in 1910, a British researcher called Whitley marveled that: “neither trees, nor shrubs, not bushes, exist… and yet the bones of elephants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes and horses are found in this icy wilderness in numbers which defy all calculation.”
But that wasn’t the only mystery posed by the New Siberian Islands. Explorers also found a number of what they termed ‘wood hills’, which ranged between 250-300 ft high, and contained the petrified trunks of millions of uprooted trees, cemented together by frozen sand, and layered with millions of splintered and crushed animal skeletons.
In 1848, German scientist G.A. Erman wrote:
“On the summit of the hills, they [the tree trunks] lie flung one upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crush, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up.”
Immanuel Velikovsky explains how this occurred:
“A hurricane, apparently, uprooted the trees of Siberia and flung them to the extreme North; mountainous waves of the ocean piled them in huge hills, and some agent of a bituminous nature transformed them into charcoal, either before or after they were deposited and cemented in drifted masses of sand that became baked in sandstone.”
But what could batter, drown, burn and then bake together such masses of uprooted forests and animals, and do it so quickly that these remains would freeze perfectly solid in just a few hours?
Evolution has no answer for this. But there is a natural explanation that fits exactly with what we’ve been discussing on this blog and over on Emunaroma, about how the earth was really formed, and when.
‘Erratic boulders’ is the name given to rocks that have a different formation, or composition, from the places where they are found. For example, the erratic boulder called ‘Pierre a Martin’ measures more than 10,000 cubic feet, and is to be found on the Jura Mountain range above Lake Geneva, in Switzerland.
Yet it comes from the Alps, many miles distant. How did ‘Pierre a Martin’ get up a mountain, tens of miles away?
How did so many ‘erractic boulders’ originating in Norway somehow travel across the sea to come to rest on the British coastline, and also high up in the Harz mountains, in Central Germany?
The same can be asked of large chunks of rock that somehow travelled from Finland over to the Carpathians, and even to Moscow, while other blocks of granite from Canada were ripped off and scattered all over Maine, New York, Massachusetts and Ohio, to name but a few - and are frequently found on the tops of the highest mountain ranges.
How did they get there?
Some of these stones weigh 10,000 tons or more, like that in Warren County, Ohio (13,500 tons), while the chalk stone erratic boulder in Malmo, Sweden measures three miles long. Even today, mankind hasn’t got the sort of technology that would enable it to transport a three mile long rock overland.
GEORGES CUVIER, FOUNDING FATHER OF PALEONTOLOGY
French naturalist Georges Cuvier was the founding father of paleontology (the study of fossil bones). In 1827, after spending many a long month studying the gypsum deposits located in Montmatre in Paris, and elsewhere in France, he wrote that:
“It has frequently happened that lands which have been laid dry have been covered again by the waters, in consequence either of their being engulfed in the abyss, or of the sea having merely risen over them…These repeated eruptions and retreats of the sea have been neither slow nor gradual; on the contrary, most of the catastrophes that have occasioned them have been sudden…
“Life has often been disturbed on this earth by terrific events. Numberless living beings have been the victims of these catastrophes; some, which inhabited the dry land, have been swallowed up by inundations; others, which peopled the waters, have been laid dry, their very races have been extinguished forever.”
The limestone deposits that Cuvier was examining painted a clear picture of large swathes of what is now France being deep underwater before becoming a land swarming with reptiles, before again being submerged under the waves and becoming home to marine life, then once again becoming land, this time populated by mammals - and so the cycle repeated itself again.
“Admitting that there has been a gradual diminution of the waters; that the sea has transported solid matter in all directions; that the temperature of the globe is either diminishing or increasing - none of these cases could have overturned our strata, enveloped large animals in ice, together with their flesh and skin, laid dry marine [animals]… and lastly, destroyed numerous species, and even entire genera.”
Cuvier’s observation is still wholly applicable today. So what did cause all these things to happen?
(We already know WHO caused these things to happen, i.e. God, the Creator of the world, and why, as set out by our Midrashim. We also know how many times the strata were overturned before man came on the scene, i.e. 974 times, plus at least a couple more timeS in the last 5777 years, during the time of Enosh, and during the time of Noah’s flood. But it’s amazing to see that the scientific evidence increasingly stacks up IN FAVOR of the genuine, Jewish account of the planet’s dramatic history. And there’s still so much more to come…)
TIGER REMAINS IN YORKSHIRE CAVES
William Buckland was a professor of geology at Oxford University at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1823, he published a work called ‘Relics of the Flood’, which detailed a number of strange findings that he attributed to some massive, world-wide ‘deluge’ or natural disaster.
For example, Buckland had excavated a cave in Kirkdale, Yorkshire, that was at an elevation of 80 foot, which contained the teeth and bones of a veritable zoo, including rhinoceroses, hippotamuses, horses, deer, tigers, bears, wolves, hyenas, foxes, hares, rabbits, pigeons, larks and ducks.
How did this conglomeration of animals come to be in the United Kingdom in the first place, and what where they doing crushed together in a cave in Yorkshire?
The same question could be asked about the group of hippopotamus, reindeer and mammoth found at Brentford, in the South East of England, the reindeers and grizzly bears that were at Cefn in Wales, and the reindeers, cave lions and hyenas that were found crushed together in a cave in Bleadon, Somerset.
To quote Velikovsky again: “According to the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6) in messianic times to come the lion and the calf would pasture together. But even prophetic vision hasn’t conceived of a reindeer from snow-covered Lapland and a hippopotamus from the tropical Congo River living together on the British Isles.”
But while these animals certainly died together, and their bones were entombed together, it’s highly unlikely that they actually lived together for any length of time. Buckland asserted that he was: “nearly certain that if any change of climate has taken place, it took place suddenly.”
Like Cuvier before him, Buckland was of the opinion that the flood, or natural disaster that caused these strange burial groupings must have occurred no more than 5000-6000 years previously.
He concluded: “What the cause was, whether a change in the inclination of the earth’s axis, or the near approach of a comet, or any other cause or combination of causes purely astronomical, is a question the discussion of which is foreign to the object of the present memoir.”
THE MASS EXTINCTION OF FISH LIFE
At the same time that the Victorian researchers were amassing accounts of the violent, dramatic and almost instant death of millions of animals on land, the same picture was also emerging from the depths of the oceans, too.
Writing in 1865, Hugh Miller examined the Old Red Sandstone strata located in Northern Scotland, and noted that:
“some terrible catastrophe involved the sudden destruction of fish of an area at least a hundred miles from boundary to boundary, perhaps much more… [the remains] exhibit unequivocally the marks of violent death…. The remains too, appear to have suffered nothing from the after-attacks of predaceous fish; none such seem to have survived. The record is one of destruction, at once widely spread and total….”
Again, this was not an unusual scene. Writing about what he’d seen in northern Italy, Buckland wrote:
“The circumstances under which the fossil fishes are found at Monte Bolca seem to indicate that they perished suddenly…All these fishes must have died suddenly… and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment.”
The same held true for fish deposits found in the German Harz Mountains, and in Saarbrucken, and Oensingen in Switzerland, and Aix-en-Provence in France, and also in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and California.
Millions upon millions of fish died a sudden, agonizing death, and then were instantly buried and ‘fossilised’ by sand and gravel as a violent upheaval pulled the sea bottom up out of the ocean, and turned their formerly watery environment into dry land.
TO SUM THIS BIT UP:
While modern science likes to pretend that the world is many millions of years old, and that nothing ‘dramatic’ ever occurred, and certainly not within a few thousand years of our present time, and certainly not instantly, the scientific evidence demonstrating the exact opposite is literally found all over the world, in the fossil record.
Land became sea, and sea became land, repeatedly, literally overnight. Mountains became valleys, and vice-versa, instantly. Whole swathes of formerly tropical, lush countryside was destroyed, petrified and then instantly flash-frozen - and much of this was witnessed by modern man.
So far, the scientific evidence is clearly showing score one for the Torah’s account of the history of the world, and score zero for evolution, and modern science’s theories of what occurred, when, and how.
But there is still a huge amount of additional scientific evidence that we need to enter into the record, in the next few posts.
To be continued…