Month: August 2022

Project Direction Map

            For larger condominium and apartment projects, the builder should consider installing a direction map board at the main entrance into the project.

            This activity should be completed about the same time as the sales models grand opening, installed concurrent with the sales models complex landscaping.

            On a particular 282-unit condominium project, the U-shaped buildings had their entry doors and address numbers on the outside perimeter of each 12-unit building, one floor level above a central motor courtyard and above street level.

            People driving into the project had no way of finding the house address numbers without getting out of their cars and walking around the buildings. 

            Not only was it difficult for visitors to find their way around the project, but delivery companies had problems as well. 

From Lessons-Learned for Builders, Architects, and Interior Designers in Housing Construction, Book 6.

Science and God are Not in Conflict, revised Part 2

Our Brain is a Mind

            In the Socrates in the City interview “Has Science Buried God?” of scientist and author John Lennox by Eric Metaxas[1], the critical point is argued that modern science has not buried faith, but that modern science can bury atheism.

            Oxford professor of mathematics Dr. Lennox tells the story of some of his world-famous scientist friends and colleagues asking the question why he is not an atheist. 

            His telling response is to ask them that if the computer and equipment they use in their scientific research was produced, was designed and manufactured through a random and undirected process, could they have a reasonable and consistent confidence in the data the computer and lab-equipment generated. 

            Their answer every time is no.

            If, according to materialism, the human mind/brain is likewise the product of the random and undirected process of Darwinian evolution, this undermines our sure confidence in the accuracy of human rational thought. 

When extended-out to its logical end-point this radical materialism dissolves rationality, even dissolves the philosophical thinking of atheism itself.

            Atheism thought-out all the way through to its end-point dissolves the reliability and credibility of its own thought process, because the accuracy of a computer, lab-equipment, or a human brain that is the materialistic product of a random and undirected process cannot be absolutely trusted.

            Atheism based upon naturalistic materialism, when extended-out logically, destroys rationality in every field of science.  Materialism sweeps away our reasonable confidence in the human mental capacity to accurately take advantage of the fundamental assumptions underlying all scientific research, that the natural world is both orderly and intelligible. 

            But most importantly and insightfully recognized, the natural world is intelligible to human beings alone amongst all other living organisms, an extraordinary capacity I do not believe we want to give up so easily to misleading philosophy.

            The reliability of our mental capacity to differentiate truth from error, and our ability to place value upon trustworthy research methods, enables the pursuit of modern science.

            One of the ingeniously insightful apologetic arguments in recent times for the existence of God is the differentiation between matter and mind…the contrast between concrete, material things as opposed to the abstract, conceptual nature of information.

            The classic case is made that the information conveyed in the daily headlines of the New York Times newspaper is not explainable by means of the physics and chemistry of ink bonding to paper.

            The information conveyed in the newspaper headlines is the product of the intelligent arrangement of the ink on paper, in this instance in the English language.  This reality transcends above and is completely detached and independent from the mechanical explanation of how ink bonds to paper.

            Physics and chemistry alone are incapable of the abstract thought process of arranging ink on paper to convey intelligible information.  The arrangement of anything complex, specified, and coherently integrated like the intelligent design of the headlines of the New York Times newspaper requires a mind.

            In the Socrates in the City interview noted above, John Lennox makes another critical point by saying that informationis not a material thing. 

            Information is correctly defined to be an abstract, intangible entity that has a non-materialistic essence, quite apart from the material explanation of how ink bonds to paper.

            Dr. Lennox gives a beautiful illustration of this.  On a mountaintop in the state of Washington, he sends up a message using smoke signals, which are read by Native American Indians who telephone this information to someone in Oxford, England, who types-inputs this into a computer that can be emailed to friends and colleagues of John Lennox at Oxford University.

            In this illustration, the information/message remains the same, but the mediums used to convey the information in the form of smoke signals, smartphone, computer, and email are all different. 

            This means that the complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information discovered in the natural world by modern scientific investigation cannot be the sole product of naturalistic materialism. 

            The information cannot be the product of the smoke signals, the smartphone, or the computer, but instead first originate from an intelligent mind, because information correctly defined is not materialistic but abstract.

From Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.

[1] Socrates in the City: “Has Science Buried God?” Aug. 21, 2019.

Common Area Lighting

            Common area lighting for clubhouse exteriors, swimming pools, and tennis courts should be switched using a photovoltaic sensor rather than a time-clock.

            A photocell can sense when it is dark and light, and switch the lighting on and off accordingly.

            The homeowners or the HOA maintenance person then does not need to periodically change the time-clock setting to match the seasonal and daylight savings changes in exterior natural lighting.

From Lessons-Learned for Builders, Architects, and Interior Designers in Housing Construction, Book 6.

Science and God are Not in Conflict, revised Part 1

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.  Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.”                                  (Ps. 19:1-2)

            A recent scientific discovery now illuminates our understanding of genetic mutations, which can be chosen by natural selection in the wild or by the artificial selection of human breeding. 

            Some genetic mutations produce helpful variant traits, which can now be tracked in a broad range of living organisms, thanks to the hard work of the 10-year project to map the human DNA genome.

            What initially took years of painstaking effort mapping the 3.5-billion letters of DNA letter-by-letter in humans, now can map the DNA sequence of a particular breed of dog, for example, in an afternoon as a result of faster computers and specialized software programs.

            Thanks to improved technology, we are now able to track-down helpful changes/mutations in the DNA, and match these mutations to their actualized traits…the physical characteristics they produce.

            This new research has revealed that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in actuality a process of devolution.[1] 

            This is discussed in an interview of biochemist, professor, and author Dr. Michael Behe in Socrates in the City, by Eric Metaxas.

            It turns out that genetic mutations do not add new informationto the DNA strand that if so, might support Darwin’s theory that the mutation/selection process is capable over long periods of time of producing enough complex, innovative new features to explain the origin of species. 

            Developments like the fully functional winged flight of birds, the visual sight of an owl, the running speed of the cheetah, the underwater sonar capacity of a dolphin, bipedal upright walking, human speech, and the human mind require vast amounts of complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information.

            Molecular biochemistry is now telling us that devolution is instead a process that breaks individual genes in the existing DNA sequence of chemical letters, not adding new creative information but subtracting information from the DNA code.

            This is much different from adding blocks of new and different cell-types in clustered groups to create the one-step leap from a Precambrian jellyfish to a Cambrian Trilobite or Wiwaxia, which I am proposing in this book as the explanation for biological development.

            But devolution does brilliantly explain the microevolution that enables adaptation to differing geographical and ecological environments, without the need to extrapolate this process into the much larger theoretical concept of macroevolution to explain the vast diversity of life progressing over the course of geological history.

            The human breeding of a prototype wolf to produce the variant forms of a Golden Retriever, Great Dane, or Black Labrador dog over many generations, involves at the molecular level in the cell the breakage of particular genes that code for specific characteristics. 

            Scientists can now identify and track these broken genes from wolf to new breed of dog, resulting in a reduction rather than an addition of genetic information creating damaged genes that will not go back in the reverse direction to recover this original lost information.

            This means according to modern genetic biochemistry that the entire program of Darwinian evolution is in reality a process of conservative change around the margins, and not radically progressive macroevolution as originally theorized.

            Instead, biology has strict boundary limits around the change-effects of beneficial genetic mutations, which we can now track through empirical scientific investigation.

I especially like the description of how we can now trace the outward physical changes from a grizzly bear to a polar bear, at the level of specific genes in the cell being broken and damaged, thus identifying the removal of information (devolving) rather than adding new innovative information.

Breaking certain genes within the cells of the polar bear not only removes the brown color of the grizzly bear’s fur to produce white fur, but creates an ensemble of newly grouped broken genes that produces the polar bear’s ability to metabolize the high fat content of seals, and also adds all of the accompanying new lifestyle habits that polar bears need to survive and reproduce in the extreme cold weather of the arctic environment.

The combination of traits that differentiates the grizzly bear from the polar bear, using the Darwinian gradualism of “nature makes no sudden leaps” no longer stacks-up when all of the evidence is examined as a whole.

The incredibly tight engineering tolerances of selecting just the right genes to break at the cellular level to create the completed life-form of a polar bear, when combined with the totally independent factors of the prior fitness of the arctic environment in terms of biodiversity and a complex ecosystem, logically cancels-out the materialistic assertion that raw nature can coordinate these factors into function and fit on its own.

The inference to the best explanation now points to an intelligent designing agent who can identify the specific DNA code letters contained in gene sequences, and break the genes in blocks of clustered groups to produce the new cell-types to create a polar bear from a grizzly bear.

            Quoting two passages from Dr. Behe’s book:

“The molecular parts of the cell are elegantly arranged to fulfill many subsidiary purposes that must blend together in service of the large overall purpose of forming life.  As we’ll see in this book, no unintelligent, undirected process—neither Darwin’s mechanism nor any other—can account for that.”

“It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus (polar bear) has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed.  Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving.  What that portends for our conception of evolution is the principal topic of this book.”[2] 

            The devolution that occurs in living cells that produces the suite of broken and damaged genes that in turn produce the variation of physical traits that changes a grizzly bear into a polar bear, does not explain how a bear comes into existence in the first-place.

            The information content in living cells that produces the architectural body-plan and lifestyle habits of a bear is much larger and more sophisticated than the microevolutionary processes that put-out variant traits for natural selection to choose from to enhance survivability, to create the differences between a grizzly bear and a polar bear.

From Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.

[1] Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves…Socrates in the City interview, on You Tube dated March 29, 2019

[2] Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves (New York: Harper Collins, 2019), 9, 17.

Landscaping Contingencies

            When composing the landscaping maintenance contract for the sales model complex, the builder should include the possibility of contingencies difficult to predict such as snails, ants, and gophers.

            Activities such as fertilizing and trimming, however, should be included within the landscape contract rather than spelled out as extras, because these activities are predictable.

            Gopher abatement is less arbitrary to anticipate and plan for than ants or snails, and can be handled through an agreed-upon fixed monthly amount.  The builder can budget some dollar amount for this landscaping activity.

            Snail and ant problems are more difficult to predict, with ants being completely unpredictable from one year to the next.  One year no ants are on the project, and the next year the sales models complex can be overrun with ants.

            The builder should be aware of these potential abatement costs, and have some money set aside as a contingency line-item based upon discussions with the landscaping contractor. 

From Lessons-Learned for Builders, Architects, and Interior Designers in Housing Construction, Book 6.

Empirical Evidence for the Existence of God

            During the follow-up questions & answers period after a presentation given by a Christian apologist or after a public debate between an atheist and a Christian, invariably a person from the audience will ask some version of the question: “Is there empirical evidence for the existence of God?”

            In the 21st century, this has to be one of the most misinformed questions a person can have.

            I place the blame for this at the feet of the scientific materialists of the second half of the 20th century and our current century, for the rigid atheism of their worldview that prevents them from considering and then disseminating a fuller and more open-minded view of the natural world.

            This fuller view of the natural world would have educated the general public about the clear demarcation line in absolutely everything…not just science…separating the fixity of things that are physically material from the variability of abstract concepts that are non-material.

            This distinction might be the most important first issue to address in the science and God, evolution and creation debate.

            One classic example of this clear demarcation line is the empirically factual, neutral and unbiased explanation from science of how ink bonds to paper, contrasted with the entirely conceptual explanation of the opinion-loaded information that is advocated in the headlines of a daily newspaper or in the title of a magazine article.

            I can read the front-page headlines and the accompanying article given below in the New York Times newspaper for example, and grasp the arguments being made and process the information on a sophisticated level to be able to form an opinion about the issues being raised, without having the slightest idea about the physics and the chemistry of how ink bonds to paper to create the printing of this newspaper article.

            There is actually no way to get from the technical information of how ink bonds to paper to the altogether different type of information conveyed in the newspaper on world events, business, sports, or fashion.

            The one type of factually specific information acquired through the scientific method of research on how ink bonds to paper, has no connection whatsoever to the type of information being conveyed in the newspaper that is concept-loaded, leading to the possibility of varied opinions and conclusions.

            The physics and chemistry of how ink bonds to paper are entirely neutral and opinion-free on the subjects expressed in a newspaper or magazine article.

            Ink bonding to paper has nothing to say about the letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, punctuation, and grammar intelligently chosen using the English language to convey information in books, magazines, and newspapers.

            The materially empirical and the non-materially conceptual are two things that are in unbridgeable categories of reality.

            This concept can be extended to apply to absolutely everything that is physically material in the natural world, and to absolutely everything that is comprised of non-material, abstract ideas.

            If something is physically material, without exception it is amenable to being dissected, analyzed, categorized, and described in terms of its physical components or behavior.

            But there is no way to quantify in terms of a physical measurement whether my opinion about the issues in the newspaper article are right or wrong.

            The scientific method of inquiry that produces empirical, fact-based evidence cannot breach the demarcation line into the judgmental zone of determining right from wrong between two or more opposing opinions.

            Opinions, conclusions, and viewpoints are in the different category of non-material reality.

            This discussion highlights and differentiates the singular empiricism of the scientific method of investigation that produces databases of factual evidence about phenomena in the natural world.

            This is why I believe that because the universe came into physical being as material at the Big Bang, that given more time and ingenious investigative techniques, that scientists will in the future discover the mechanics of how the universe came into existence.

            This is why I believe that no matter how complex is the material nanotechnology inside living cells, that given more time and evermore ingenious investigative techniques, that scientists will in the future discover all or nearly all of the physical mechanics of how genetics, DNA, and the cell produce the vast diversity of life on earth.

Empiricism Cannot Logically Opine on the Existence of God

            One example of badly missing the big-picture as limited by an atheistic worldview, is to not recognize the implications in terms of directional trajectories and prior fitness that the Big Bang is an explosion.  Explosions do not create intelligible order, but instead create chaotic disorder.

            We only see order coming out of the Big Bang by looking backwards in hindsight from the current order we observe today in the natural world.

            From our direction looking backwards in time it is easy to take for granted that of course order arose out of the Big Bang explosion 13.7-billion years ago, because today we observe order in the natural world.

            But from the time of the Big Bang looking forward, to arrive at the orderliness and intelligibility of the natural world today is asking too much of a random and undirected, purely materialistic process.

            A massive explosion in a printing press factory will not generate a dictionary.

            A tornado going through a junkyard will not assemble a 747 commercial jetliner.

            In our normal experience, explosions do not produce things that are orderly to the point of being intelligible to human investigation through science, like our universe amazingly is.

            The late scientist Stephen Hawking can brilliantly investigate the origin of the universe through quantum mechanics. 

            This is all well and good, and scientists will continue this investigation.

            But the narrow focus of the atheism of scientific materialism precludes the fuller picture that would include the obvious question once we see it, of how a massive explosion at the beginning of the universe could over billions of years arrive at an end-point in this 21st century of cognitive, thinking human scientists exploring the physically material universe, exploiting with great success this orderliness and intelligibility, arising out of the chaotic disorder of a massive explosion.

            Scientific materialism derisively dismisses intelligent agency as a plausible explanation behind the orderliness and intelligibility of the natural world, while putting forward the materialistically nonsensical view that this orderliness and intelligibility could arise out of an explosion through random and undirected processes.

            Another clear example of atheism sweeping the obvious under the rug, once we see it, is the idea that extra-large stars are needed to implode through gravity to produce the required heat to make carbon and oxygen, just before exploding to spread these critical elements throughout the cosmos that are essential to enable complex life like ourselves to exist.

            The chemical bonding properties of the carbon atom are critical to form the numerous compounds that enable living organisms to exist, yet again a massive explosion of giant stars is required to translate over billions of years this physically material reality into life on earth.

            The Big Bang creation of the universe is dated to 13.7-billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on earth is dated to around 3.8-billion years ago.

            Doing the math, this equates to a gap of time of nearly 10 billion years from the existence of the material universe to the beginning of life on earth.

            What quality of foresight would be capable of spanning this period of time to connect-the-dots beginning with carbon and oxygen created within exploding supernova stars, to arrive at exquisite end-points of function in the ten-million different species living on earth today exhibiting unique architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits.

            The common layman on the street would and does say as the majority opinion that this directionally targeted outcome of complex, specified, and coherently integrated living organisms could not come about through random and undirected processes commencing with giant, supernova stars exploding 13-billion years ago.  

            I did not take anatomy, physiology, or biology courses in high school or college, and could not pass today the first pop-quiz in the introductory classes in any of these subjects.

            But I can easily recognize in this 21st century through the most general understanding of the various parts of my body, through a non-technical introspection of how precisely everything internally works, that I am vastly too complex to be the product of a mindless, blind, accidental, indifferent to outcomes, trial-and-error, and undirected process.

            Ask most people the same thing, and given a moment of reflection would agree that we are too complex and too highly specified in terms of function to be the product of a solely matter and energy universe.

            It is the element of atheism within scientific materialism that generates the uninformed question: “Is there empirical evidence for the existence of God?”

            The correct answer is that of course there is no empirical evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible, because God is a non-material, Spirit-Being…but this is not the end of the story.

            Provisional conclusions that are abstract concepts attached to scientific research programs can no more exclude divinely intelligent agency than they can support atheism as the only worldview acceptable to pure science.

            The leap across the wide canyon from factually empirical data to the conceptualization and theorizing required to make sense of this data, is analogous to the unbridgeable gap between the physics and chemistry of how ink bonds to paper when compared to the opinion-loaded information advocated in the headlines of the New York Times daily newspaper.

            During an interview in Socrates in the City[1], John Lennox makes the insightful comment that after Stephen Hawking states at the beginning of his book The Grand Design that philosophy is dead, Hawking spends the reminder of the book discussing what can only be called the philosophy of science.

            What isn’t clearly being said here is that such a book cannot, by categorical definition, be anything other than philosophy.

            Once Stephen Hawking or any other scientist shifts into the abstract informational zone of temporarily provisional theories and conclusions, in the writing of a book or an article in a scientific journal, or in writing a proposal for a research grant, this vehicle of communication has crossed over the demarcation line from the purely empirical nature of factual databases to breach into the opinionated realm of conceptually abstract idea-making.

            When scientific materialists import abstract reasoning into the empirical realm of factual evidence and attempt to classify this conceptualization as being science as well, they are pleading a special case in favor of science that is not logically allowed anywhere else.

            The unbridgeable dichotomy between the mechanics of literally everything in existence that is physically material, compared to the altogether different reality of conceptually abstract ideas in the non-material form of information, is not only operative in the science and God debate, but in everything imaginable in material and non-material reality.

            This distinction between the material and the non-material is fundamental to understanding anything in the real world, and thereby exposes the nonsensical nature of the question of whether God is a physically material entity and thus amenable to empirical identification.

            Finally, the part about reading a newspaper article and forming my own opinions and reactions to the issues posed, involves the element of free-will choice.

            No one can force me to think a certain way regarding a specific issue or topic.

            This flexible variability in the realm of personal opinions lifts all such abstract conceptualizing and theorizing out of the entirely different realm of the empiricism of studying physically material things in the natural world that produces not variable opinions, but instead fact-based evidences not open to speculative opinion.

            This is why the worldview of atheism does not belong anywhere near the scientific method of research, God or no-God being inapplicable to the scientific research program as long as it stays on the empiricism side of the demarcation line separating the material from the non-material.

            The argument between the theist and the atheist involves the variability of personal opinion, and thus falls outside of the empiricism of the scientific method.

            This then correctly shifts the dispute into what is called an inference to the best explanation, which is entirely philosophical although based upon the same agreed-upon database of facts.

From Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.

[1] John Lennox: Socrates in the City in Labastide, France, Part 2, Jan. 23, 2018 on YouTube.

Human Development and Evolution, revised Part 1

            Modern evolutionists adopt and incorporate the Latin axiom of Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species: “natura non facit saltus,” that nature makes no sudden leaps.

            An incrementally progressive chain linking together Australopithecus-Africanus (4-7 million years ago), Homo habilis (2-million years ago), Homo erectus (1.8-million years ago), and Cro-Magnon man which are early Homo sapiens (200,000 years ago), requires the logical consistency of a uniformly straight, gradually moderate, upward-sloping, horizontal graph-line.

            This would include historically recordable milestone advancements along this progression.

            Darwinian macroevolution applied to human development requires incremental improvements chopped-up into small enough pieces in order to easily progress through the process of genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. 

            This has to occur over a long, drawn-out period of time.

            This evolutionary progression would reveal human transitional improvements as historically evident milestones spaced-out incrementally along the way, both in terms of recognizable physical characteristics, but also intellectual/lifestyle advancements.

            We cannot adopt gradualism as the axiom that nature makes no sudden leaps over a long period of time in the advancing anatomical and intellectual development of human beings, without some tangible evidence in the intellectual/lifestyle arena to show for it.[1] 

            This should be a presentation of the evidentiary facts required of modern evolutionists in support of progressive development, especially as historical time ticks downward in the very recent past decades at 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 thousand years ago.

            In plain words, if gradualism is the paradigm of human development, then we would expect to see a quarterly report-card…a historical audit report…of humanity’s physical and intellectual progress at mid-stride points in time in the distant past. 

            We cannot have sudden, vertical spikes of intellectual forward-progress and a Darwinian progress report of horizontally gradual, slowly improving human physical attributes, both occurring within the same span of time.

            In the hypothetical progression from ancient ancestors to modern humans, a mindless and undirected natural world can provide no preferential skips forward for mankind’s intellect. 

            Darwinian macroevolution allows only a slow-moving, naturalistic gradualism.   

            A large advance of development in a living organism in biology is called a saltation.  They are considered outside the reach of random and undirected processes to bring into being, within single creative events. 

            A saltation requires the combination and coordination of too many small genetic mutations to coalesce into one large, beneficially functional trait, to then successfully be chosen by natural selection at a single point in time.   

            If the historical development of human beings was in-fact gradual, this would apply not only to physical traits but also to lifestyle/intellectual advancements. 

            These advancements must be in a relatively close one-to-one correspondence to the physical traits being put-out by the ever-increasing complexity of new and different cell-types introduced over time. 

            Otherwise, the only option left is to have a lump-sum addition of advanced intelligence to human beings at a late, singular point in time, which could only occur through divine action, which is what I am suggesting did occur here based upon the evidence. 

            The lump-sum addition of human intellectual acuity late in development would create a nonsensical dichotomy between physical and mental advancements in the naturalistic program, a reality that becomes more difficult to explain through random, accidental, and undirected processes.

            Modern humans have 215 different cell-types and roughly 100 brain nerve-cell types.[2]

            I personally have no problem with Australopithecus-Africanus having 160 cell-types, Homo habilis having 170 cell-types, Homo erectus having 185 cell-types, and Cro-Magnon man having 195 cell-types leading up to modern humans (Homo sapiens) with 215 different cell-types to support our current architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits, for example.

            This would explain cave paintings, stone arrowheads, primitive tools, and pottery fragments dating back tens of thousands of years produced by pre-humans lacking the full complement of cell-types, yet still functionally suited to their biodiverse, contemporary environment.  

            The concept of the download of clustered groups of differing new cell-types removes the need of a metaphorical explanation for the sudden appearance of mature human faculties in the biblical story of Adam and Eve, discussed in more detail later in this essay.

            But if we insist upon a linear progression of new and different cell-types one-at-a-time from a hypothetical starting point of 160 cell-types 4-7 million years ago to the current 215 cell-types today, then we must find signs of human intellectual milestones pushed back hundreds of thousands of years, if we are to be logically consistent.

Human Writing as an Indicator

            The human invention of writing is a critical, date-stamp indicator of human intellectual progress that helps to pinpoint when humans acquired their full complement of 215 cell-types and 100 brain nerve-cell types.

            The invention of writing is dated to as recent a time as 3,200 B.C. in the wedge-shaped cuneiform lettering of Egyptian hieroglyphs.  The cuneiform alphabet in Syria is dated to around 2,000 B.C., and the invention of the 22-sign Phoenician alphabet is dated to around 1,000 B.C.

            The start of the writing of the first five books of the Old Testament called the Pentateuch, is dated by conservative scholars at around 1,450-1,410 B.C., at the time of the Exodus.[3]

            The Greeks adopt the Phoenician writing script around 800 B.C.   

            The invention of human writing is therefore placed at only 5,200 years ago.

            There is no evidence of sophisticated, written communication using an alphabet 15,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, or 150,000 years ago in the very recent past as a milestone event in human intellectual development.

            The boundary-line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is generally placed at around 200,000 years ago, which inaugurates the start of what is considered by paleontologists to be modern man.

            It would follow then that the invention of writing, by some exceptionally gifted persons having forwardly progressing IQ’s above and out in-front of the general populace as is common today, would have occurred at least as far back as sometime around 200,000 B.C.

            To have a smooth transition of beneficial, variant physical traits moving incrementally forward in a positive direction from the start of Homo erectus at 1.8-million years ago to the start of Homo sapiens at 200,000 years ago, yet have human writing start around 3,200 B.C., is illogically nonsensical.

            For humans to invent writing in 3,200 B.C. and then be standing on the moon in 1969 A.D. is fact-based evidence that argues for the near instantaneous introduction of intellectual capacity.

            This is in stark contrast with Darwin’s notion that nature makes no sudden leaps, in the one and only area where the developments of advancing physical traitsand lifestyle habits can be compared side-by-side in the common descent theory of human beings.

            When Charles Darwin wrote in his classic 1859 book The Origin of Species “nature makes no sudden leaps,” he locked himself into the paradigm of changein relation to time applied to biological development, which in my opinion is wrong because he was working within the limited constraints of the materialistic worldview.

            According to what seemed reasonable at the time in 1859, Darwin thought that by hypothesizing small-step changes put-out by living organisms as variant traits through random and undirected processes, that natural selection could arbitrate between the comparative values of these traits for survival and reproductive advantage, and favor the most beneficial. 

            In fairness to Darwin, it would be asking too much to expect that he could rise above the conventional thinking of change occurring over time, because the modern discoveries of complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the natural world of biology were little known in 1859.

            But today the concept of an instantaneous rate of change occurring in a “width-less” moment of time t=0 is entirely understandable when we ponder the Big Bang, the origin of life, the Cambrian Explosion, the immergence of human intelligence, and elementary calculus.

From Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.

[1] See the discussion of the Waiting Time Problem during the final roughly 12 minutes of the podcast: Gunter Bechly Explains What the Fossil Evidence Really Says, published by Discovery Science November 23, 2021 on You Tube.

[2] On the Origin of Phyla—Interviews with Dr. James Valentine, by Access Research Network, published on Oct. 22, 2014, on You Tube.

[3] 2061030 The Oldest Yahweh Inscription 2 Kings Joel Kramer, published Oct. 30, 2016 by Lighthouse Church-Twin Falls on YouTube…at Joel Kramer Archaeologist.

Contract for Landscape Maintenance

            For large condominium projects…sometimes called planned unit developments (PUDs), there are two phases to the common area landscaping. 

            The first phase is the installation toward the end of the building construction, and the second is the maintenance phase after the homebuyers move-in and occupy the project.

            It is sometimes better to give the contract for landscaping and maintenance to the same company.  The installer of the landscaping material can then safeguard the warranty aspects of the landscaping during the first months of the planting by controlling watering, fertilizing, etc.

            If any plants or trees die during this period, at least the builder is not caught in the middle between the original landscape contractor and a different landscape maintenance contractor. 

            If the homeowner’s association wants a cheaper landscape maintenance company later, the original ground cover and other plantings have had time to fill-in completely, thus offering the opportunity for a final landscape walkthrough and clean break from one company to another.

            A second issue to consider in the landscape maintenance contract is that the amount of work and therefore the cost, varies depending upon the length of time after the initial planting. 

            Landscape maintenance costs are different for the first month, sixth month, and twelfth month after planting, because of the different requirements for trimming, plant removal, fertilizing, weeding, disease control, and repair of irrigation.

            The builder must study the requirements for each type of plant and tree to determine the amount of work being purchased in the maintenance contract. 

            What sometimes happens in a landscape maintenance contract is that the builder is enticed by a low-ball, minimum cut-and-trim contract bid with such things as tree trimming, disease control, plant removal, and fertilizing billed as extras to the contract. 

            This type of contract can create problems for the builder and the homeowner’s association, as no ceiling-cap exists on landscape maintenance costs in this type of arrangement.

            A better method is to research the planting and maintenance requirements for each type of plant or tree in a standard gardening manual, and then formulate a maintenance contract scope of work section with the help of the landscape architect (or include this task in the landscape architect’s scope of work).

            The builder can then spell-out in detail the landscape maintenance requirements for the project, so that landscaping contractors are bidding apples-to-apples, instead of hiding certain maintenance costs as extras.

            A third consideration is the time-period that the original landscaper maintains the landscaping until it is inspected and turned over to the homeowner’s association (HOA). 

            If the builder makes this date 30 days after planting, for example, the builder economizes on the landscaping installation contract because the landscaping is covered by the HOA common area financial dues earlier.

            If the original landscaper must maintain the newly planted landscaping for 90 days, this defers the point in time at which the expense of maintaining the landscaping is passed to the HOA, therefore remaining as a construction cost to the builder.

            Issues other than costs to the builder affect this decision. 

            If the builder simply wants to save money by getting the landscaping maintenance tab picked up by the HOA as soon as possible, few people will be sophisticated to recognize this, or have the opportunity to do anything about it.  After all, the landscape installation contract is part of the construction purchasing phase, so the contract and its scope of work are negotiated long before any homebuyers or an HOA management company exist for the project.

            On the other hand, the builder must sometimes play the role of an arbitrator between the landscape installer, the landscape maintenance company, the homebuyers, and the HOA management company.

            This situation can occur when the landscape inspection walkthrough and acceptance transition is too close in time to the original planting date, especially when the landscape installation and the landscape maintenance are to be performed by two different companies.

            At this early date, ground cover has not had enough time to fill-in, it is too early to tell whether some trees or plants will die, and the original installer has no control over the proper care of the landscaping once the project is handed over to the HOA, although a warranty period could still be in effect.

            To avoid these issues, the original landscape contractor should maintain the landscaping for at least 60 to 90 days past the planting date. 

            The original contractor can then control the survival of the plants and trees, and this length of time allows the planting to fill-in so that a definitive transition can occur should another landscaping company be selected by the HOA for landscape maintenance.

From Lessons-Learned for Builders, Architects, and Interior Designers in Housing Construction, Book 6.

Sales Office Views & Tree Placement

            For projects with panoramic views of golf courses, mountains, hillsides, rivers, streams, and ocean views, the builder should physically lay-out the placement of new trees using visual line-of-sights out through the windows of the sales office and the model units.

            In coordination with the landscaping plans for the sales office and the sales models, the views out each individual window can thus be maximized in terms of actual placement and sizes of trees. 

            Following the landscaping plan precisely without visual confirmation may produce tree placements that are slightly off and not optimum for a particular view.

            One method to achieve optimum placements of the trees is to have someone stand outside at the approximate location of a tree or large shrub per the landscape plans, and hold up a push broom or a cardboard mock-up of a tree.

            The decision-maker then stands at the particular window, moves the person holding the broom to the best location to maximize the view, and then the exact spot chosen is marked.

            This simple operation can add a subtle but important benefit to the project, getting the most out of a particular view.   

From Lessons-Learned for Builders, Architects, and Interior Designers in Housing Construction, Book 6.

%d bloggers like this: