How to Read Deep Time Puff Pieces

Learn how to dissolve away the puff
before considering claims made

The Big Science Cartel and its accomplices in Big Media operate within a materialistic framework that has ruled out teleology, intelligent design, and (most certainly) creation according to the Bible. So entrenched is this bias, they cannot even conceive of thinking outside of that box. When it comes to origins, everything you read about science in the media and major journals will be slanted toward Darwinian materialism and deep time. They assume it, pretending that nobody knowledgeable of science thinks otherwise. With Big Media’s help, critics of materialism and deep time are summarily censored.

Dr Jerry Bergman has published three thick volumes with true stories of how Darwinists systematically censor and ruin the careers of Darwin skeptics.

The biased scientists may offer worthwhile evidence for factual parts of their presentations, but sprinkled throughout are words of materialist propaganda, like iron filings permeating the soup they serve. The perceptive reader must extricate the bias before consuming: think of using a magnet to pull iron filings from the soup, using a winnowing fork to separate the wheat from the chaff, or using a centrifuge to isolate the desired products (the facts of nature) from the bias. Let’s practice this skill.

Hidden Patterns in Geological Time Revealed: Earth’s Variability Saturates at Half a Billion Years (Vilnius University, 25 Aug 2025). Watch this materialist believer in Deep Time weave a tale about something he cannot possibly know and that cannot possibly be true in light of observations that rule out Deep Time..

A new international study published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters reveals that the boundaries between geological epochs and periods even though randomly distributed, but follow a hidden, hierarchical pattern. Co-authored by Prof. Andrej Spiridonov from Vilnius University (VU) Faculty of Chemistry and Geosciences, the research shows that these time boundaries cluster in a way that reflects the Earth system’s deepest fluctuations. This finding could reshape how we understand our planet’s past and its possible futures.

To avoid being duped by Tontological statements like this, always ask, “Who’s ‘we’, Paleface?” It’s more ethical to be right than popular.

“Geological time scales may look like tidy timelines in textbooks, but their boundaries tell a much more chaotic story. Our findings show that what seemed like uneven noise is actually a key to understanding how our planet changes, and how far that change can go,” says Prof. Spiridonov, geologist and paleontologist a co-author of the study.

by Brett Miller

This divination exercise of finding “multifractal logic” and “planetary rhythms” in chaos is a form of pareidolia, seeing things that aren’t there, like a face on Mars or a unicorn in the stars. Even so, the scheme breaks down in timeslices smaller than 500 million Darwin Years, they admit. What possible connection could exist between biological evolution and “planetary rhythms” anyway? They just made it up. They ignored dinosaur soft tissue and carbon-14 in diamonds. So is there any empiricism in this futile exercise? No; it’s all iron filings and no soup. Go to the Genesis diner instead.

From eons to epochs: multifractal geological time and the compound multifractal – Poisson process (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1 Nov 2025). This is the technical paper written for the November 1 issue. Don’t be fooled by the Jargonwocky. If the premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. The premise:

The structure of time scales influences our understanding of the Earth system and biotal evolutionary processes at all time scales. Over billions of years, life and the environment have interacted nonlinearly, and complex bio-geo-processes have led to the formation of the familiar deep-time bio- chemo- litho- and chrono- stratigraphical subdivisions in the International Geological Time Scale (GTS), whose geochronologic time units are the familiar eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages.

The conclusion of a bad premise is necessarily wrong:

Human life, the rise of civilization, and the evolution of the Earth are punctuated by hierarchically structured events that color our notions of time and its passage.

There’s the materialism: everything we value, including our minds, just evolved blindly and without purpose. But critical thinkers are not shopping for “notions,” much less colored ones. They want facts. If one’s “understanding” is built on notions that have been colored by evolutionary (materialist) assumptions, it is not understanding at all.

Moonrock, by Alan Bean, depicts John Young and Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) collecting lunar samples. Used by permission from astronaut Alan Bean.

How the Apollo Missions Unlocked the Origins of the Moon (Paul Sutter, Universe Today, 24 Aug 2025). Dr Paul Sutter, “cosmologist, NASA advisor, author, and host,” a frequent contributor to Universe Today, is a congenial confibulator for the materialist consensus. Materialists believe that the universe, the solar system, the earth and all its life made themselves by a miracle of emergence: no Creator was involved. Part of what he says about the origin of the moon (an event he did not observe) is correct, and part is not. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?

Our Moon is huge, at least, relatively speaking. It’s 1.5% the mass of the Earth, which is bigger than any other ratio with the exception of the Pluto-Charon system. So we gotta ask: how did we get our big ol’ moon?

In the early 20th century, there were dozens of ideas floating around academic circles. Maybe the Moon was a still-forming protoplanet that we captured. Maybe when the Earth was still molten we were spinning so quickly that we flung off a chunk, like when you stir cookie batter too hard, and that became the Moon. Maybe the Moon formed on its own from the collision of several smaller objects in Earth’s orbit.

Or maybe none of the above. “All those ideas are wrong” is a perfectly acceptable statement.

Bingo: “All those ideas are wrong” summarizes the Apollo findings. How Sutter can say that “dozens of ideas” were floating around (all materialistic) is not clear; there were only three main ones. The Apollo moon rocks devastated all three leading theories for a naturalistic origin of the moon: the capture theory, the fission theory, and the collision theory.

Sutter’s homey lingo adds some sweetening to the bait before he dumps some iron filings in your soup. Get your magnet handy. His discussion of chemical elements present in Apollo lunar samples, and what elements were not found, constitute good observational science. But those data points have nothing to do with the fable he describes next:

How do all these pieces fit together?

They fit together with the giant impact hypothesis. This is the idea that when the Earth was still forming, we were struck by a Mars-sized protoplanet named Theia…. The collision released not a little bit of energy, and sent a chunk of the Earth and some bits of Theia into orbit around us.

This explains the common isotope ratios: we’re made out of the same fundamental stuff. And it explains why the Moon had deep magma oceans (our favorite kind of magma oceans): because the whole scene just kinda blew up. And it explains why the Moon doesn’t have a lot of heavier elements like iron, because all that sunk to the center of the Earth (and we have an extra-large core thanks to that). And it explains why the Moon lacks any really light elements, because all that got vaporized in the collision and it didn’t have enough gravity to hold onto it.

Without disrespecting Dr Sutter’s ability to do math or write scientific papers, he doesn’t know any of this. He wasn’t there. If he were acting as a critically thinking scientist, he would know to do a full literature search on this topic before pontificating about it. He would tell his readers about the many problems with the Giant Impact Hypothesis (e.g., here and here and here). Since he does not do this, he is confibulating like a snake oil salesman to get you to buy his materialistic spiel. To top it off, he waves the “consensus” wand to make you think that if you don’t believe the tale, you must be one of those redneck science deniers outside of “academic circles” where the smart people hang out.

Phew! The giant impact hypothesis is now the most common belief amongst scientists as to the origins of the Moon. Without the Apollo missions, we would have a much less complete picture, and be much less sure of our conclusions.

Ignore the Tontological “we” in that sentence. A “common belief” can be a wrong belief. Why didn’t Paul Sutter talk to Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke about moon rocks? Duke walked on the moon and collected samples. He found a moon rock that the “consensus” told him was 1.9 billion years old on one end and 3.9 billion years old on the other end (15 April 2024). Two radically different “ages” were claimed on the same six-inch rock! One anomaly like that is enough to unravel a narrative.

We are unlocking how frozen microbes stay alive for 100,000 years (New Scientist, 25 Aug 2025). Reporter James Dinneen says, “Microbes found buried deep in Siberian permafrost may be able to survive over extremely long timescales using protein repair genes.” The key word in the sentence is “may.” Nobody has experienced 100,000 years; human history only goes back a few thousand. Scientists have trouble figuring out how human egg cells survive in a woman’s body for a few decades; how much less can they speculate about 100,000 years! Always look for a high perhapsimaybecouldness index to identify Deep Time bias that wallows outside of observational science.

“Finding living Asgard archaea in ancient permafrost provides a window into their evolutionary history… and how they may have influenced the emergence of complex life forms”, especially during periods when Earth was completely frozen, says team member Renxing Liang at the China University of Geosciences.

OK, now you know. Their Darwinian slip is showing. In “evolutionary history,” complex life forms just “emerge.” Balderdash.

“Thinking about Deep Time” – this Smithsonian display shows all of recorded human history as a tiny sliver at the right end of the timeline. But how can they know everything left of that sliver without making assumptions about deep time?

In review, here’s how to separate deep time bias from observational facts:

• Watch for assumptions of deep time and evolution.
• Look for a high perhapsimaybecouldness index.
• Be alert for card stacking: using only experts and sources who agree with deep time, and ignoring or censoring the critics.
• Don’t be swayed by authority or bandwagon or bluffing.
• Watch out for miracle stories (emergence of complex life by chance) and divination (building “understanding” on notions).

Watch and share the Short Reel about this article! Click to view.

Now that you have seen several examples, try your hand at separating bias from observational facts in the following news articles:

‘Potentially hazardous’ asteroid Bennu contains dust older than the solar system itself — and traces of interstellar space (Live Science, 25 Aug 2025). 

Rising deep-ocean oxygen levels likely opened up new marine habitats and spurred speciation (Duke Univ via Phys.org, 25 Aug 2025). 

Mystery Greek hominin skull dated to be at least 286,000 years old (Phys.org, 20 Aug 2025).