———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <gerdapeachey@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Subject: Please stop paying Merck to inject Gardasil into nine year old children in public schools. Morally reprehensible and sick to do this to innocent, and healthy little children.
To: “deJong.MLA, Mike” <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, Darryl <Darryl.Plecas.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “Gibson.MLA, Simon” <simon.gibson.mla@leg.bc.ca>, Cindy Schafer <schafer4trustee@gmail.com>, preet_rai@sd34.bc.ca, stan_petersen@sd34.bc.ca, Shirley Wilson <wilson4trustee@gmail.com>, rhonda_pauls@sd34.bc.ca, freddy_latham@sd34.bc.ca, Phil_Anderson@sd34.bc.ca

This is from Gardasil’s own site:  GREEN is my words and  (The red emphasis is mine) 




It’s only natural for parents to have questions about vaccines. You should know that Merck, the manufacturer of GARDASIL 9, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitor the safety of the HPV vaccines. Below you’ll find information about the safety of GARDASIL 9.


Make sure to tell your child’s doctor or health care professional if your child:

Has immune problems, like HIV infection, cancer, or if your child takes medicines that affect the immune system

Has a fever over 100°F (37.8°C)

Had an allergic reaction to another dose of GARDASIL 9 or GARDASIL

Takes any medicines, even those you can buy over the counter

Is pregnant or planning to get pregnant


People should not get GARDASIL 9 if they have or have had an allergic reaction to:

A previous dose of GARDASIL 9 or GARDASIL

Yeast (severe allergic reaction)

Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate

Polysorbate 80

Your child’s doctor or health care professional will help you decide if you or your child should get the vaccine.

WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON SIDE EFFECTS OF GARDASIL 9?The most common side effects include pain, swelling, redness, itching, bruising, bleeding, and a lump where your child got the shot, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, tiredness, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and sore throat. Fainting can happen after getting GARDASIL 9. Sometimes people who faint can fall and hurt themselves. For this reason, your health care professional may ask your child to sit or lie down for 15 minutes after your child gets GARDASIL 9. Some people who faint might shake or become stiff. The health care professional may need to treat the person getting GARDASIL 9.

(Maybe I will never get answers to the questions I have asked of government.  There is still some sort of communication but getting a copy of the contract, or deal, or agreement, or whatever it is that the BC Government has made with the Merck pharmaceutical  has not emerged yet.  My voice simply is not one of power or influence, but meanwhile how many thousands of innocent little girls, and now soon, it seems, also little boys as well,… are being given three shots of a chemical mixture, that puts a tidy sum of money into the Merck company, FROM the pockets of BC taxpayers.

These little children are not sick.  They are not ‘sexually active’, unless those precious kids are being used by predators.  But this is another form of predation.  Children have little control over things like immunizations.  Generally they trust the adults in their lives to love them and protect them.  BUT IS THIS PROTECTION?  You parents, guardians, politicians, school board trustees of these trusting children,……do you know what the interplay of chemicals designed to change the child’s normal body chemistry will do beyond the purported possibility that they’ll be kept from one of the many possible sexually transmitted diseases, or one of the myriad cancers that the human race suffers?  

You do not, and cannot know what other chemical changes Gardasil will do in the little child’s body, …… whether soon, or farther down the road.

Spend quality time with your children.  Teach them to reach for all the good things that life has to offer.  Guide them to save their precious bodies for committed, lasting, loving partners, not to assume that they must give in to every impulse, like this horrific program of injections assumes.  Little children need protection and help to grow up to maturity where they are equipped to live adult lives.  

This assumption that all little children will not have self control, will likely get diseases, and must therefore be given Merck’s shots while in public school and at public expense is morally reprehensible.

What a wonderful boon to Merck and what an awful thing being done to our trusting little children.

I ask every thinking adult who reads this to demand answers from your government, your school boards, Health departments, and Merck.

Here’s part of an email I sent, among the many that to date have yielded no answers.  Note that the information I got from the BC Government is not even close to the side effects that Merck itself lists.   That should give pause to you people who want to provide love and protection for your precious little kids.)

To: Lake.MLA, Terry <Terry.Lake.MLA@leg.bc.ca>; deJong.MLA, Mike <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>; premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>;ed.fast.c1a@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Using tax-dollars to inject Gardasil into little children under the guise of saving them from future sexual HPV disease.

To Health Minister Terry Lake, and Finance Minister Mike de Jong, Premier Christy clark, and MP Ed Fast:

Under Freedom of Information would you provide me with the amount of money we have paid, to date, to Merck, the pharmaceutical company that makes Gardasil?

Please provide a copy of your agreement with Merck. 

Have you committed BC tax-payers to a long-term agreement? 

Have you agree to persuade more children to accept this shot for Merck?

Are you aiming to fulfill the Merck goal of making these injections MANDATORY FOR ALL LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Please provide the number of children in public schools who have been given this injection to date.

Please provide the number of children you expect to persuade in the future, via their guardians, to get this injection.

Please provide the number of children who’ve had adverse reactions to the Gardasil shot. (The only information I was able to get from you, the government to date, was woefully inadequate, citing a nonchalant and dismissive comment under ‘What are the risks and side effects?’…answer…...’Possible side effects include a low fever and soreness where the shot was given.’ )

That does not mesh with the thousands of voices raised in warning against this invasive medicine for an illness that does not exist, and need never exist in the future of that child. Please view some of those protesting this enormously lucrative deal for Merck, and highly suspect benefit for children. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/07/07/pfizer-vice-president-blows-the-whistle-tells-the-truth-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry/

I know you can buy experts to authenticate any desired outcome, but surely injecting the chemicals in Gardasil into little children for sexual activity that we should encourage them to keep for a life-long partner, is nowhere near the category of giving shots for mumps, measles and chicken-pox , those things they can catch just by being in the same room as other children!

Please provide what data children and their guardians receive in advance, in order that they may be well-informed as to the risks, as well as the purported benefits.

How much do you anticipate this program will cost on an annual basis?

Do you have any idea what these chemicals will do in these young bodies later on? Will girls have more miscarriages? Can these chemical cocktails lead to depression, or to ALS or Multiple Sclerosis. MANY voices from within the medical community are warning us about giving Gardasil to little children. Please listen to them. 

Below is a list of autoimmune diseases. Many people believe these are on the increase due to the unknown and extremely complex inter-reactions within our bodies when we inject or ingest chemicals.

Have you in the BC Government taken the warnings into account before you urged that little children should have THREE shots of Gardasil, to possibly prevent a sexually-aquired disease, long before we want our little children to be giving their bodies to satisfy the lusts of others?

Now the Canadian Cancer Society wants to give the boys to Merck’s bottom line:

Male HPV-related oral cancer rates on the rise: Canadian Cancer Society

Canadian Cancer Society calls on provinces and territories to expand free HPV vaccination programs to boys

CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 19, 2016 1:55 PM ET

Terry Patterson was 49 when he was diagnosed with a tumour on his tonsil caused by HPV. He is advocating for young people to get vaccinated against the virus. (Hannah Yoon/Canadian Press)

Related Stories

External Links

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Mouth and throat cancers now represent about a third of cancers induced by HPV in Canada, according to a new report.

The Canadian Cancer Society and Public Health Agency of Canada released their annual report on cancer statistics Wednesday, with a special chapter on cancers linked to the human papilloma virus.

Almost 4,400 Canadians will be diagnosed with HPV-linked cancers this year and about 1,200 die from it annually.

About one third are cervical cancers.

“If you look at the trends there we’re seeing that cervical cancer is relatively stable,” said  Leah Smith, an epidemiologist with the Canadian Cancer Society. “But rates of HPV mouth and throat cancers in males are increasing.”

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease in Canada and the world, the society said.

Most people never even know they have the virus since the infection usually clears within two years without causing physical symptoms. They can pass it on to their partners without knowing, which highlights the importance of prevention.

There is a vaccine to protect against most common types of HPV that cause cancer.

Vaccines can protect against some infections associated with cancer, such as HPV and hepatitis B. (Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press)

“HPV vaccination is something relatively easy parents can do to protect their children from cancer,” Smith said.

The HPV vaccine is offered to girls in all provinces and territories and to boys in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I. and Quebec.

Smith said vaccination policies should reflect that one in three HPV cancers are diagnosed in males. That’s why the society is calling on other provinces and territories to expand free vaccination programs to boys.

Canadian men are more than four times more likely to get an HPV mouth or throat cancer than women.

Why that’s the case isn’t clear, Smith said.

“It does seem that the male immune system is responding differently to HPV infection than the female immune system,” Smith said. “What we are seeing is men are more likely to get an oral HPV infection and then once they get the oral HPV infection, are less likely to clear [the infection.] It’s the persistence of HPV infection that ultimately lead to cancer.”

Smith said the hypothesis is changes in sexual behaviour, including potentially oral sex, are behind the increase in infections.

(….. Okay, we know cancer is a pervasive disease, but have a thoughtful look at the major ways to prevent cancer. Lets teach some common sense healthy living to our kids. How sure can we be that altering a little child’s body functions with the chemicals in Gardasil will not in fact be a trigger to serious problems and even cancer.  We warn people about so many environmental factors that can cause harm, and then willy-nilly go shooting chemicals into the bodies of helpless children?  Something really sick is going on here.)

Leading cause of death in Canada

More generally, cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada, responsible for 30 per cent of all deaths, followed by cardiovascular diseases such as heart disease and stroke, and accidents.

New cancer cases and deaths continue to rise steadily as Canada’s population grows and ages, according to a new report.

Current estimates suggest an estimated 202,400 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Canada this year and there will be 78,800 deaths from cancer.

Half of new cancer cases will be lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Of these, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death — more than the other three combined.

While the majority of Canadians who develop cancer, 89 per cent, are over 50, cancer was also the leading cause of disease-related death in children under 15 in 2012.

The society said the risk of cancer can also be reduced through measures such as:

  • Avoiding smoking: Tobacco is responsible for nearly one-quarter of cancer deaths worldwide, making it the single greatest avoidable risk factor for cancer.
  • Following a healthy lifestyle: Eating well, being active and having a healthy body weight can prevent about one-third of the 12 major cancers worldwide, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund.
  • Reducing alcohol consumption: Alcohol is a risk factor for many different types of cancer, and the risk of cancer increases with the amount of alcohol consumed.
  • Avoiding overexposure to sunlight and not using tanning beds or sun lamps: Limiting time in midday sun, wearing protective clothing, seeking shade and using sunscreen can help reduce the risk of skin cancer while still allowing people to receive the health benefits of sun exposure.
  • Preventing cancer-related infections: Vaccines can protect against some infections associated with cancer, such as the HPV and hepatitis B. Lifestyle can also play an important role in preventing infection.
  • Reducing exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens: These include radon, asbestos and many industrial chemicals.

With files from The Canadian Press

In the summer of 2006, Health Canada approved the vaccine Gardasil manufactured by Merck Frosst to help prevent cervical cancer, genital warts, and precancerous lesions caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) among Canadian women. $300 million was set aside in the 2007 federal government to launch a nationwide vaccination program to reduce the incidence of cancer of the cervix. The vaccination is  approved in Canada for females between the ages of 9 and 26.
The group especially recommended for receipt of the vaccine by the provinces are girls between 9-13, ideally before they become sexually active. It will be up to the provinces and territories to decide who should receive the vaccine, and whether to make it available at no cost.Type of incentivesFinancial incentives to the provinces to make the vaccine widely available to girls between 9-13. Several provinces (e.g. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, Ontario) have decided to move forward with the voluntary vaccination of school age girls. For instance, in the fall of 2007, the Ontario government will offer free vaccines to an estimated 84,000 girls in Grade 8.Groups affectedCanadian girls between 9-13(Please note the Degree of Controversy is HIGH.)

Characteristics of this policy

Degree of Innovation traditional rather innovative innovative
Degree of Controversy consensual controversial highly controversial
Structural or Systemic Impact marginal marginal fundamental
Public Visibility very low very low very high
Transferability strongly system-dependent system-dependent system-neutral

Top of page
Stakeholder positionsAfter the announcement was made that the federal government would make funding available for use of the vaccine by the provinces and territiories, the promotion of the vaccine became controversial in Canada, with some medical professionals arguing that the introduction of the vaccine needs to be more evidence based (Lippman et al, 2007; Canadian Women’s Health Network, 2007) while others, such as the Public Health Agency and Health Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) stating that there is enough supporting evidence to move forward with a vaccination program for girls who have not yet become sexually active.The common ground is that the vaccine needs to be part of an overall strategy around healthy sexual behavior and lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking cessation) and access to primary care, including a regular Pap test. However, according to the Canadian Women’s Health Network (2007), accessibility to primary care is hindered by the absence of female health care providers, time constraints, costs (direct and indirect) of getting services, childcare, language and literacy differences, lack of knowledge, cultural differences, safety concerns (history of childhood sexual abuse and/or history of abuse at the hands of healthcare professionals), and health care providers’ attitudes towards cervical cancer.Another point of contention seems to be the exclusion of males from the mass vaccination procress. Vaccinating males would curb the vector of the virus (Canadian Women’s Health Network, 2007).Another key area is the role of lobbying efforts by Merck Frosst, which manufactures Gardasil, the only approved vaccination against the HPV virus.Lastly some groups are concerned that widespread availability of the vaccination can lead to a weakening of parental responsibility to educate their children about sexual activity.(NOTICE THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY LINE IS EMPTY, AS IS THE LINE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY.  Why is that?)Actors and positionsDescription of actors and their positions

Public Health Agency of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
national Advisory Council on Immunization very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
federal government very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
provincial governments very supportive supportive strongly opposed
Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Council of Medical Officers of Health very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
The Federation of Medical Women of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Civil Society
The Canadian Cancer Society very supportive supportive strongly opposed
GOC Task Force on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Institute of Marriage and Family very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Canadian Women’s Health Network very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Scientific Community
Researchers very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Private Sector or Industry
Merck Frosst very supportive very supportive strongly opposed

Influences in policy making and legislationCanada’s federal government 2007-2008 budget included $300 million to be distributed to the provinces and territories to fund the new HPV vaccination to reduce cervical cancer rates in Canada.Legislative outcomesuccessActors and influenceDescription of actors and their influence

Public Health Agency of Canada very strong very strong none
national Advisory Council on Immunization very strong very strong none
federal government very strong very strong none
provincial governments very strong very strong none
Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists very strong strong none
The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada very strong strong none
Council of Medical Officers of Health very strong strong none
The Federation of Medical Women of Canada very strong strong none
Civil Society
The Canadian Cancer Society very strong strong none
GOC Task Force on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control very strong strong none
Institute of Marriage and Family very strong weak none
Canadian Women’s Health Network very strong weak none
Scientific Community
Researchers very strong weak none
Private Sector or Industry
Merck Frosst very strong strong none

Adoption and implementationThe funding for a mass vaccination of girls was provided in the 2007-2008 federal budget. There were no obstacles noted in any of the literature, though several medical professionals (e.g. Lippman, 2007) have argued that the introduction of a mass vaccination program is premature and more evidence is needed around its long-term effectiveness and its effectiveness when given with other immunizations. The provinces are responsible for implementation; some (Ontario for example) are further ahead than others.(NOTE THAT THIS POLICY IS TOUTED TO CONTROL SOME STRAINS OF HPV.  WHAT AN AMAZING RISK FOR SO LITTLE ASSURANCE. )Monitoring and evaluationThe intended consequence of this policy change would be a reduction of the incidence of cervical cancer among Canadian women through the control of some strains of HPV. Formal monitoring would be done through provincial and federal Medical Officers, and the Public Health Agency of Canada.Review mechanismsno formal plans for review have been announcedResults of evaluationNATop of pageExpected outcomeIt remains debatable how effective the vaccination program will be because the current focus is on girls between the ages of 9-13 and there is very little research evidence on the effectiveness and long-term consequences of the vaccine on girls of that age. Moreover if the effect of the vaccination is to reduce the use of Pap tests among young women, other strains of HPV which can lead to cervical cancer could go undetected. Under the best of circumstances there will be a reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer and genital warts among Canadian women with no serious side effects attributable to the vaccine. Some researcher suggest that more would be accomplished if the $300 million in federal funds had been allocated to increasing access to Pap tests.Impact of this policy

Quality of Health Care Services marginal rather fundamental fundamental
Level of Equity system less equitable four system more equitable
Cost Efficiency very low high very high

There are no reports as yet on the impact of the funding initiative. The expected impact is that it will improve quality, reduce equity issues in accessing the vaccine amongst young girls but not among older teens and young adults, and perhaps improve cost efficiency.Top of pageReferencesSources of Information

  • Lippman, A., Melnychuk, R., Shimmin, C., and Boscoe, M. “Human Papillomavirus, Vaccines and Women’s Health: Questions and Cautions.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 177(5): 484-487. 2007.
  • Canadian Women’s Health Network. HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations.Winnipeg, 2007.
  • The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada. GOC Responds To Public Concerns Regarding HPV Vaccine And Cervical Cancer Prevention, 2007.

Author/s and/or contributors to this surveyTorgerson, Renee and Margaret MacAdamSuggested citation for this online articleTorgerson, Renee and Margaret MacAdam. “HPV Vaccine Funded in Canada”. Health Policy Monitor, October 2007. Available at http://www.hpm.org/survey/ca/b10/2








graph-of-time-alloted-for-public-hearings-in-bc———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <gerdapeachey@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Graph of Time Allotted (as jpeg)
To: submissions@bcombudsperson.ca, George Murray <gmurray@abbotsford.ca>, Henry Braun <hbraun@abbotsford.ca>, Darren Braun <dbraun@abbotsford.ca>, “deJong.MLA, Mike” <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, Darryl <Darryl.Plecas.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, peter.fassbender.mla@leg.bc.ca

Raheel Humayun, Manager of Investigations:

Hello Raheel:

Thank you for your letter.  In our telephone conversation you folk asked if I had spoken about my concerns to City Manager, George Murray.  I told you that I do send my emails to him, as well as to the rest of Council.  Mr. Murray blocked my emails quite awhile ago, so I don’t sense any openness for dialogue from him.  However I still include his name on most emails to City Hall.

Unfortunately there is a history of blocking the voices that City Hall does not want to hear.  A few years back a local farmer saw his next door property sold to new owners, who commenced using the farm land for a large truck park.  Traffic rumbled and roared in and out, all hours of the day and night.  Men washed the trucks, did oil and lubricant work on the glacial till above the local aquifer, …… all of this absolutely against Abbotsford zoning and by-laws.  At first  City staff were pleasant and assured the farmer and his wife they would look into it.  But there was no action and business boomed for the scofflaw next door.  The farmer and his wife, and other neighbours continued to ask the City to stop this flagrant abuse of the rules, but nothing changed, except that City Hall no longer picked up the phone when she called.  The scofflaw continued unimpeded and since then been joined by many others property owners who make a lot of money on illegal business activities in Abbotsford.

The same scenario has repeated itself endlessly in terms of large houses in town, being converted to multiple illegal dwellings,….. using ALR lands to rent out sheds, trailers and barns to bring in a steady flow of under-the-table rental money.  The City says by-law enforcement is complaint driven, which has become a sick joke.  People have phoned the City until they give up in disgust.  Our City does enforce by-laws,……..on some people, and notably not on others.

One Abbotsford couple phoned City Hall over and over and over about a new neighbour who brought in hundreds and hundreds of loads of fill.  Same dreary story.  The City did nothing.  Water flow got altered, the couple saw their front yard turn into a pond.  Their trees died.  The City did nothing, but stop returning their phone calls.

So that, and hundreds of stories like that, is why I am dismayed at the sudden move by City Hall to remove the Land Use Contract that has protected our community of 159 properties for 44 years.  For years I’ve witnessed a dysfunctional response to blatant disregard for the rules that govern us.  Whether the uneven enforcement is due to apathy, incompetence, cowardice or possibly even corruption, ….. ultimately the effect on our City is an unhealthy disdain for governing authorities, and increasing disregard for laws.   That really matters because our democratic system will not survive without a respect for, and adherence to, communally agreed upon rules.

I have tried to work towards a level playing field in my city for the past two decades, with no success, and that was what made my decision to run for Council myself.  Now the grim prospect of large houses looms over my wonderful neighbourhood, with the prospect of a radically altered neighbourhood and quite possibly lots of illegal suites.

I could easily live with zoning that accommodated both modulars and regular houses, and the right of any property owner to have a renter to help alleviate the financial burdens of life, while also providing good safe homes for renters.  But I know from  experience that large houses often become hidden dwellings for multiple, illegal suites.

That explains my reason for opposing the LUC removal that initially was sprung on us, so suddenly and silently,…

an application that would already be a fait accompli but for some clear heads and fast action by neighbours.

Our journey opened our eyes to a fundamental flaw in the way the Province allows local governments to proceed with Public Hearings, that have the potential to radically impact land value and quality of life.  My City insists that they are perfectly within the Provincial mandate when they drop a post-card announcement in their mailbox 13 days before a Public Hearing, so at best affected neighbours will get a card in the mail 12 days prior to a hearing about by-law changes  that might be of vital importance.  Newspaper ads also give less than 14 days heads-up.

Council says the Province does not even require them to direct developers to put up Re-zoning signs, that they are going above and beyond by telling developers to put up those signs. This ridiculously short time frame and lack of prior consultation is a slap in the face of people who are the foundation, the back-bone of our province.

British Columbia will see many Land Use Contracts discharged by the year 2024.  Inadequate notification time for neighbourhoods is either set by thoughtless bureaucrats or there is something far more nefarious at play.  No consultation is required, no information need be provided and a paltry few days notification that puts local residents at a distinct disadvantage to developers. Whether seen as positive or negative, people need to be given enough time to know about proposed changes to the land around them.

Politicians and civil servants have the inside track on the outworking of Bill 17 and what is going on with LUCs.  Local governments have the task of ending all LUCs..  Many politicians buy and sell real-estate. There is nothing illegal about that, but there must be no hint of anything that would give an unfair advantage to government employees or their friends.

Minister of Finance Mike de Jong helped implement Bill 17 and had some involvement with real estate in our unique community, so it is imperative that By-law amendments be done in an orderly, transparent manner..  Given that the proponent of the K.K. Gill application specifically made reference to the Minister, there should have been a halt to what was already a flawed, rushed push to approve the application.

There is no malice in my reference to our MLA.  I’ve attended his monthly breakfast meetings for a number of years.  He impresses me as a really smart, high energy, strong politician.  And I joined the Liberal party so that I could add my vote to his bid for Premier.  I would probably do that again.  It is the action of our Council that lacked quality.

Many LUCs are coming up for discharge and policy makers influence zoning.  Zoning can radically alter the lives of existing property owners, so there MUST be adequate time given for affected residents to know what is being proposed, and to involve themselves in the proceedings, if they want to.  At present the advantage is all on the side of speculators.

I ask that you not close this file.  Because of our frantic efforts the City has denied the application, for now.  Finally, the City says they will consult with us, something they propose to commence soon, with a new proposal set to bring to Council early in the new year.

Our area may likely look a lot different within a few years, and that came way earlier than 2024.

Before other local councils spring sudden and possibly drastic changes on their people, I ask you to speak to the government on behalf of all of British Columbia, to make it a law that the MINIMUM notification time be changed from the present ten days to,…….I would suggest,…..thirty days.

My MLA, Darryl Plecas has committed to bringing the matter to community affairs minister Peter Fassbender, but says all such things can take a very long time.  However this business of sliding the zoning from under the feet of the public must be addressed now.  People who pay for government to serve and protect them should not be given short shrift like this.  The current policy and time frame are patently wrong, and cannot just be left as something that might be addressed sometime down the road.

Those LUC discharges offer lucrative opportunities to land-use speculators and plenty of folk in government are in a position to pass insider information to family and friends, as well as their own direct benefit in land speculation.

There has to be an amendment to the current required minimum notification to residents, to allay the suspicion that this is designed to be easy for speculators and unfair to locals who aren’t watching every move made by their Council.

I’m hoping your office has sufficient independence to move forward on this.

Thank you,

Gerda Peachey

Attached see my simple graph showing TIME allotted for a variety of things, and the absurd number of days given for land-owners to learn about a Public Hearing that might have profound impact on their lives.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <gerdapeachey@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Subject: Mayor and Council confused. Is this about “misinformation” or missing information.
To: Henry Braun <hbraun@abbotsford.ca>, rsiemens@abbotsford.ca, Darren Braun <dbraun@abbotsford.ca>, Bill Flitton <BFlitton@abbotsford.ca>

I’ll address this primarily to Mayor Braun and Councillor Siemens:

Quite a few of my neighbours tell me that I was the obvious, unnamed, object of some rather unpleasant insult and derision at your last regular council meeting, Oct. 3rd, and after listening to it, I’m guessing they’re right.  

So I could just ignore your attack, but then what would that say about my credibility when I speak or write on vastly more important issues.  I know this world is not my final home, so the battle to save my neighbourhood from possibly higher taxes, uncertainty about a ‘grandfathering’ clause, or maybe an explosion of illegal suites,……these all pale in the light of eternity.  So to let you denounce me publicly, and behind my back as an unsavoury deceiver will not go unchallenged.  

Ross, you expressed regret that I was not there to hear you, and hoped that I would nonetheless have the pleasure of hearing your stern rebuke.

I’m taking you seriously, so below is a transcript of your words.  I would be loathe to give you another opportunity to accuse me of spreading misinformation, so the words are accurate, and anyone can pull up the video to confirm them.

Both of you, Mayor Braun and Councillor Siemens, strongly imply that I am less than truthful, and that my neighbourhood was caused stress and grief because of me.

It is certainly because of me that people here knew about your first public hearing set for July 25th.  Every single letter and email I have written has been sent to all of you, as posted on my blog.  Any error or “misinformation” coming from me then,…. was amply available to you, for your immediate correction, had you been so concerned about ‘misinformation’.

So about 15 people turned up at hearing No. 1,……not because you had made it known to them, but because of my letter.  But then, due to your own mistake, these folk were greeted by a staffer telling them to go home.  You did not think it worthwhile to let them know about the hearing in the first place, and did not think them significant enough to notify of the cancellation.  I got there just as you declared the Public Hearing over, and you would not allow one word from us.  At that point I said you were “Shabby,…….all of you.”  And so you were.

My reason for regarding you in such a dim light was the enormity of what you would have done that night,…….swiftly and almost silently in the middle of a hot July vacation.  You would have approved an application that had the potential to radically alter our neighbourhood.  As I’ve stated many times, you must accept all applications, but you are not required to move them to a Public Hearing.  The BC government’s decree to end all LUCs in the Province by 2024, and the City decision to have that all done by the year 2020 was starting to infiltrate into our thinking.  No one that I met was remotely prepared for you to rush at us with a precedent setting by-law change in 2016. 

The events since the ill-fated July hearing confirm you wanted to approve K.K. Gill on that evening.

I join my neighbours in relief that finally you are going to consult with us, but after listening to your words, I see little of substance.  No assurances on some major questions we have.

Some of us met with staff before.  Many people wrote letters/emails, yet NOTHING was altered from the first application, to reflect that input.  Nothing.  Staff simply brought the same application out for round two.  Communication from the public obviously had zero influence.

So I get it.  Your feelings were miffed on July 25th, and it was get even time last Monday. Only I was not there, as you noticed.  Even if I’d been able to come, you from your lofty heights would have free reign to call my integrity into doubt, but the context does not allow the audience to speak.  Would you then have allowed me to respond to your insults?  I rather doubt it.

Recall that I applied to be a delegate about your flawed Public Hearing process on August 29th, and you Mayor, at first denied my request.  The text of my appeal was that you correct what is lacking in the way you communicate information, in a timely manner. My text is available on your archives, and on my blog.  You, Mayor Braun and the councillors could have corrected any point of error, but you were all silent, except for the mayor’s outburst about me insulting his Council, but completely ignoring what I actually said.  Okay, I had called you all shabby a month earlier, so I guess it’s gloves off.  But try not to lose your own integrity in this momentary affliction.

In the transcript below you clearly accuse me of misleading my community.  Given that I am limited in my access to information, it would be easy for me to be wrong at times, but I am not a deceiver.  I attempt always to back up what I say with documents.  I want to be factual, and have no intention of standing before the God of all creation as a liar and deceiver.

Show me where I’m wrong and I will publicly correct the error.  

You however seemed poised to hurry through a by-law change that would radically alter our unique affordable neighbourhood. 

So here’s what I do not hear from any of you at the October 3rd council meeting.  If all the land-use speculators waiting in the wings move to build 3 -storey houses, with suites, how soon will it be before BC Assessment looks at $750,000 houses and the humble mobile dwellers dispersed among them, and can we expect to find much higher property tax bills in the mail once expensive houses increase in number?

I’m relieved there will finally be public meetings, but given that earlier meetings effected zero results, lets state some questions now.

Will you remove the RS3 that currently underlies our protective Land Use Contracts, because that RS3 explicitly does not allow for mobiles or modulars.  And you Mayor Braun made a passing reference to the ability for people to just stay put, if they wished,…….but that does not mesh with the facts, as they now stand.  I asked repeatedly for you people to provide some clarity on that, but silence is your norm.  Will we be ‘grandfathered’, and if so spell out what that means.

In the meetings you now promise, please ensure the RS3 is obliterated from our portion of the Official Community Plan.  We need a unique zoning to accommodate continued modular homes.

Councillor Blue was happy to quote the one, of two, neighbours who actually live here and want the LUC gone.  That man knows he was too hasty in declaring that all of us live in dirty, dank, disgusting mouldy trailers, that should all be condemned.  In fact despite Ms. Blue’s eagerness to quote him, he really does NOT live in a disgusting place at all.  He bought a known drug house and he did that with his eyes wide open.  He spent months fixing it up before bringing in his family, and his place is lovely now.  He just wants the right to enlarge it, if he wishes, and I would not want to deny him that right.

I did ask him if he’d called Mayor and Council to kind of set the record straight, but if he did Ms. Blue does not seem to have heard the news that neither he, nor most of us live in trash cans, that have reached the end of their useful lives.

For your further information, not every error of perception expressed on Sept. 12th had its origin in my relentless pursuit of sowing misinformation.  For example the man who said that if you approved K.K. Gill, we would all be forced to build large houses with suites.  Nope.  Wasn’t me that time. 

Actually, a number of people did ask me to lead the charge, rally the troops, and storm the bastille.  But if you should ever have the mildest curiosity, you can read pretty much every email I sent them, and that only to about 15 people.  And I distributed two letters to every home,….also available on my blog,…….As well I sent pretty much everything to all of you.

In my communication I urged people to:








At no point did I agree to be their fearless leader,……..quite the contrary.

Similarly, despite a number of requests to start a petition, I declined that, and had nothing to do with the wording on it, or the gathering of signatures.  I signed it when a neighbour came to my home, that’s all.  Neighbours were genuinely concerned and talked to each other, and wrote you and phoned you.  And some arranged for meetings to talk to you people in person.

In fact I might have even suggested that it was really important to make their quest for answers decidedly apart from me.

So if there is misinformation about what the proposed by-law change would mean for our community,…… I suggest you are to blame.  You rushed this.  You provided no information.  You never consulted our community before springing the news of a Public Hearing, with virtually no days to digest that, ask questions or engage in the issue.

The time between the receipt of your post-card and a Public Hearing is ridiculously short, and one might wonder if that brevity of time is not deliberate and calculated to reduce the power of public participation in important Hearings.

Land Use Discharges all over BC can be lucrative.  In my community, people tell of multiple properties now owned by the same landlords. There is a push for zoning changes to happen from these people who clearly are scooping up affordable housing, not because they want to live here. Wealthy speculators stand to make tidy profits on flipping land, but a paltry few days is granted for the affected public to hear about Hearings.

Mayor Braun, I don’t think that I ever accused you or the Council of having secret meetings with developers.  I said developers spend months with staff in preparing to bring their proposals to council, which is self-evident.  My point being that developers do have a lot of time to interact with staff, so surrounding land-owners must also be given adequate time to prepare, should they consider the application undesirable.

Lawmakers/politicians have enormous power over what happens to zoning of the land, and some elected officials dabble in real estate. Fine, but then ensure a high degree of integrity and transparency, not like this present situation, whatever the reasons were for rush.

Some of us raised the question of the lack of a sticker on the re-zoning sign, and you all seem to agree that is a non-issue, which may well be, but we are still mystified. Here is a link to the letter I sent you earlier this evening:  https://gerdapeacheysviews.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/mayor-and-council-and-misinformation-part-1/

 Below see excerpts of the Council transcript with highlights on some of your interesting comments.  Red will be mine.

Transcript from Regular Council Meeting, Abbotsford, BC Monday evening, October 3, 2016
Comments on Bylaw No. 2623-2016 and 2552-2016

Mayor Henry Braun: “… that of a sticker that had not been placed on the sign. The only other person that spoke to this bylaw was a half-owner of the property in question who spoke in support of the Land Use Contract discharge, and stated that he did not believe that there was a sticker requirement for the sign regarding a Public Hearing. So with regard to this sticker, could staff inform Council as to whether or not there is a sticker requirement for the sign regarding the Public Hearing. I don’t know who wants to take that on or not.”

City Manager George Murray: “I’ll jump in, your worship. Currently there’s no requirement for a sticker on the sign to deal with a Public Hearing. That was discussed at one of our committee meetings as a future potential proposal, but it is not currently in the Development Applications Procedures Bylaw.”

Mr. Murray, the City website appears to show this as a discussion during a council meeting, not merely a committee meeting.

Mayor Henry Braun: “All right, thank you. That clears that up. I would also, just for the viewing public and those who were at the Public Hearing, just point out that there is actually no provincial legislative requirement to place a sign. However: in Abbotsford, in an effort to be open and transparent, our Council Procedure Bylaw requires that a sign be placed, but it is a self-imposed Council requirement, and I won’t belabour the first Public Hearing. That did not happen. I think our staff explained what happened, and so conversely that, or as a result of that, the Public Hearing item was pulled from the first Public Hearing and then was subsequently placed on the subsequent Public Hearing, and there was no meetings as some have alleged  (Don’t keep us in suspense here, who is this nasty alleger, and please show us some documentation) that somehow there was meetings going on. So I just wanted to make that plain. Under normal circumstances I would be voting in favour of this Land Use Contract discharge (Right.  And you wanted this done on July 25th) for a number of reasons. The one objection that was raised was based on misinformation that a sticker was required on the sign regarding the Public Hearing. Secondly, Land Use Contract discharges have occurred fairly regularly in my almost now five years on Council. The discharge of Land Use Contract is not something that just appeared  (This application however IS something that just appeared, out of nowhere, on a hot July day, with barely time to think, let alone act on it.) as some alleged. Discharges have been happening for many years as residents make application. Every property owner has a legal right to request a rezoning or a discharge of a Land Use Contract. That doesn’t mean that we will do it, but they have a right as a property owner to ask. However: It appears to me that we have a situation with this bylaw and the next one that is similar to a report that Council dealt with earlier today at Executive Council meeting regarding properties located at Duncan Avenue, Sunvalley Crescent, Simpson Road, and Ross Road. As Council will recall, the followup report recommended that Council authorize staff to schedule a neighbourhood information meeting to consult with the neighbourhood on a conceptual draft zone for the subject properties which, in that case, would allow for agricultural uses to be maintained. With this bylaw, as well as the one

that follows, I also believe that staff need to take a closer look at the entire area involving five different and distinct Land Use Contracts, (Good, there would have been a lot less fuss here if you had started out that way.) not just the two that we’re dealing with tonight. In other words, there is a parallel — there are parallel land uses, land use issues with both Ross and Simpson in that area, and this one, that need to be looked at, I believe, in a more holistic way. With Ross and Simpson, it was agricultural land use; with this one, it is modular homes. I believe that by denying both applications, it would allow staff to have a much broader public consultation with the property owners that are captured by all five Land Use Contracts, not just the two we’re dealing with, and to bring back a report to Council, hopefully when the zoning bylaw is complete. (Better late than never) Now I know that this will be a great disappointment to the two applicants, but I think it is the right thing to do. This neighbourhood information meeting would also allow staff to specifically address the significant amount of misinformation (Please tell us exactly what that “misinformation” is and provide proof of this nefarious activity. And since it is clearly me you are talking about, why would you not have staff write a nice long letter to correct any erroneous information. and post it on your City Page.) that was circulated prior to the Public Hearing. As I listened to the majority of the residents who spoke at the Public Hearing, my heart went to many of them regarding the views that were expressed, some at the point of tears. I was saddened that the misinformation caused angst and fear in many of those who spoke.  And lastly, a neighbourhood information meeting would also provide opportunity to hear from the entire neighbourhood affected by the five Land Use Contracts, and I think Council needs to hear from that entire neighbourhood. (What a concept!  Just also happens to be what we were pleading for) One example: By not allowing residential homes to be built in the neighbourhood, Council would in effect be devaluing the underlying land of each property. (Which makes little difference to those who just want to live on the property they bought. But the value gradually rises anyway, in the overall picture.  Allowing ‘monster’ homes to replace humble mobiles will cause financial strain if taxes increase) In other words, when a modular home has reached the end of its useful life, only a new modular home could be erected, (Here you are either uninformed or misleading because neighbours have tried to thoroughly research the underlying RS3 zoning, and the grim reality is that it DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MODULARS.  I asked repeatedly for assurance, in writing, that ‘grandfathering’ was in fact real, reliable and a firm promise for people who just want to continue living here. Only silence from you. Who decides when a modular has reached the end of its useful life anyway?  My neighbours are always working to maintain their homes.) which would significantly reduce the value of the underlying land for anybody who wanted to sell. Now for somebody who just wants to replace, it doesn’t matter.   (Mayor Braun, please write this on a tablet of stone, with hard copies for everyone who wants one, because this is really important.  Yet City Hall provided nothing to settle the question.) But I just want to make sure that everybody in that neighbourhood understands that. And so I think this would allow for broader consultation and I think Council might make a better decision than we would if we don’t have this consultation. So those are my views. I will now turn it over to Council with regard to the first bylaw. Councillor Blue.”

Councillor Sandra Blue: “Thank you, Mayor. Just adding to your comments, and in a slightly different perspective, you know, clearly the neighbourhood is passionate about their neighbourhood, there’s no question there. And I really went through all of the comments again, and I was really struck by two things, one, that you’ve noted already, the misunderstanding by many that this application would somehow force others to follow suit, (Not many, Councillor Blue.  Just one person seemed to think that.  However I have certainly stated that other speculators were waiting for you to approve this precedent setter and would quite swiftly move to pull out mobiles and replace them with large houses and suites.) or that there would be negative consequences, (I most certainly expect negative consequences if a lot of large houses and suites move in.  First, pretty much all the trees will get cut down. I shudder at the thought of 3 storey houses hovering over us and maxing out the footprint.  And last, but not least, – many large houses pay for themselves via the flow of rental money for multiple illegal suites.  The point being, if something is deemed illegal, it is the ruling government that decrees it to be so.  Some people are deterred from this lucrative activity because they either fear breaking the law, or just want to obey the law, which makes honesty a disadvantage.  We look to government to enforce the laws that they impose on society, ensure a level playing field.  To the extent rules aren’t enforced, or enforced with bias, democracy is undermined.  People know what is going on around them. They become jaded and cynical when the communal laws that bind us together in a civil society are not equally enforced.  Abbotsford Councils past and present have allowed landlords to do a tidy business in illegal use of their land for way too long.  And that is one major reason for the lack of safe, secure affordable housing.  Honest brokers cannot compete with this lucrative business of illegal suites and hidden dwellings. Yes, that is what I anticipate will begin to happen in our beautiful community, because I know it is true in much of Abbotsford, ……and so do you.)  and also that some of the current owners are really frustrated by their inability to replace their homes as it currently is, and one gentleman described his as, he characterized it as deteriorating and unhealthy,   (He bought a KNOWN grow-op, and he was fully aware of the LUC in place.  He does not live in an unhealthy place at all, because he spent months fixing it up for the family he loves.  He admits to overstating this at the Public Hearing) so as I look at this, I’m wondering if there’s a way that we could allow this particular application to proceed. (Allow the precedent, and you could not deny speculators waiting in the wings. Any hope of a sensible community zoning would be finished.) The applicant has heard the concerns of the neighbours and about the character, the form and character that they want to maintain, and if there’s a way for us, and this will a question through to staff, and if there’s a way for us to do that and allow this one to proceed, and then subsequently do all of the other work that’s required, and maybe the question is one of timing, how expeditiously could staff come back with the neighbourhood meeting and the plans and so forth, so that we’d have some idea of how long this would take either way.”


Councillor Ross Siemens: “Thank you. Yeah, this is—I’m just wondering, there’s— Proponents on both Windsor and on Oakridge have followed proper procedures, and I think there’s—Are we able to, if we defeat this and send it back for consultation, the monies that they have expended on this, because again, it was, I think, they were following proper procedures, as laid out, but I think that there’s extenuating circumstances here that would require us to maybe have a more holistic view, similar to what we did with the Simpson Road area. So are there ways that we can reimburse them that money?”

Mayor Henry Braun: “Yes, I was intending to suggest to Council that at the end of the decision, assuming that we defeat it, that a motion be made to reimburse both parties for their application fees because, as you rightly pointed out, they followed the procedures that were in place, so I don’t think that’s a problem.”

Councillor Ross Siemens: “Well, with that in mind, then, I would be prepared to defeat— move that we defeat this bylaw. Do you want this to be in two—?”

Mayor Henry Braun: “We’re just dealing with the first bylaw but my comments covered both bylaws so that—Council understood where I was going, because Council’s not heard what I said until this—a few minutes ago.

Councillor Ross Siemens: “Well, I would be prepared to follow suit on both—defeat both of these and send it back. And I guess I just want to make it very clear that I respect the respectful tone that many proponents brought forward. I was a little dismayed, and I don’t see the particular individual that resorted to, sort of, stirring things up, (Ross: If telling the neighbourhood about a Public Hearing that might just matter to them is “stirring things up”…….GUILTY as charged) but I think you achieve a lot more when you’re respectful in your comments, and when you don’t mislead (Please provide your evidence for this insult Ross.  And where have you been this whole time?  Why did you not get yourself into our community and provide a place for people to ask questions, and express their concerns?) your neighbourhood, and, you know, we got elected, I think, because we care about our community. (Actually, I did believe that you ran for Council because you care about this City.  Too bad you ran on the slate of AbbotsfordFirst, with all the questionable stuff attached to that business.) I don’t think there’s anybody I got elected with that doesn’t, and we’re here to be, we’re reasonable people, we care about our community, I think we can be approached, and we can be dealt with accordingly. But I don’t think we got elected to be abused, (Sorry princess) and I think some of the negativity was bordering on abuse, and I think for that particular individual, I hope takes note, that she was precariously close to having this thrown out, (Curious.  Maybe you can demystify this for us.  Would you penalize my entire community by the way you vote, just because you have a quarrel with me?  Surely a Councillor of Abbotsford would be bigger than that.)  Mayor Braun seemed to suggest and I just am a little frustrated that I don’t see that particular person here. (Sorry again.  Did not know you were gunning for me, but had business in the big city, or I likely would have been there.) But yeah, I think the neighbourhood raised some very valid points, and I think, because of those points, I think it would be contingent upon us to do the right thing and I feel quite comfortable in making that motion to defeat this and send it back.” 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <gerdapeachey@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:57 PM
To: Bill Flitton <BFlitton@abbotsford.ca>, Darren Braun <dbraun@abbotsford.ca>, George Murray <gmurray@abbotsford.ca>

To Abbotsford Mayor and Councillors

cc. Abbotsford News

Dear Mayor and Council: I have attached photos of the three pages of Abbotsford’s sign-and-sticker requirements, from the City’s website.


You have accused me of spreading misinformation about this. I just thought you might be interested to know the source of my “misinformation”.

I took these off your website today, therefore I presume it is not outdated information.  As I questioned you about these stickers many weeks ago, I wonder that you did not clear the whole thing up, way back then.  Instead you pretend that I have been engaged in spreading misinformation on this, among other alleged grievous fallacies.

Please explain why these are so prominent on your website, if they are not to be taken seriously.

I will be responding to your public statements and, as always, will send them to you, as well as to others.


[Mayor Henry Braun and Councillor Ross Siemens spent a bit of time at Monday’s council meeting referring to me, not by name.  Nice of them.  I listened to it and think a response is in order.]

Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe



Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)

there is much evidence for a young age of the earth

There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.

Can science prove the age of the earth?

No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).

No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (currently 13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.543 billion years for the solar system).

Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.

When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.

Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).

Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.

Biological evidence for a young age of the earth

Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer

Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen.

The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.

    1. DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
    2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
    3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the bookand the interview with the author in Creation30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
    4. The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
    5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
    6. Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).
    7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vesselsproteins (hemoglobinosteocalcincollagenhistones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
    8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
    9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
    10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. CoelacanthWollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!
    11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.

Geological evidence for a young age of the earth

Photo by Don Batten

Eastern beach syncline

Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.

    1. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
    2. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
    3. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
    4. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
    5. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
    6. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
    7. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
    8. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
    9. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastropheJournal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
    10. Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a ‘flat gap’. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the ‘missing’ geologic timeCreation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
    11. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of ‘gap’ time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
    12. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
    13. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years.
    14. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of ‘fossil’ soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If ‘deep time’ were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geologyJournal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
    15. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
    16. The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
    17. The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
    18. Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixturesSedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
    19. Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
    20. Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
    21. Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
    22. Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
    23. Existence of significant flat plateaux that are ‘dated’ at many millions of years old (‘elevated paleoplains’). An example is Kangaroo Island(Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
    24. The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning ‘five million’ years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountainsImpact 381, March 2005.
    25. Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call ‘discordant drainage systems’. They are ‘discordant’ because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007.

Niagara Falls

Erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood.

    1. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe.
    2. River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
    3. Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
    4. Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
    5. The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that highererosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
    6. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
    7. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern SiberiaJournal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
    8. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” —Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
    9. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessaryfor a young earth).
    10. Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
    11. The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).

Magnetic reversal pattern mid-ocean ridges

Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.

    1. Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
    2. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily—with a little rhythmCRSQ 47(3):193–201; 2011.
    3. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earthJournal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.

Radiometric dating and the age of the earth

    1. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
    2. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
    3. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
    4. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
    5. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
    6. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
    7. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
    8. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
    9. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
    10. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
    11. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
    12. Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processesCreation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
    13. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical ‘young’ earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
    14. Australia’s ‘Burning Mountain’ speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).

Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe

Photo by NASA


Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.

    1. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframeCreation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html
    2. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
    3. The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionistsJournal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.
    4. Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark ‘seas’ formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving ‘ghosts’. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the skyCreation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
    5. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ ‘dynamo’ mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
    6. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long ‘dead’ if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
    7. Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moonJournal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
    8. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
    9. The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
    10. Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane. An Astrobiology item titled “The missing methane” cited one of the Cassini researchers, Jonathan Lunine, as saying, “If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface.” No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system (needless to say, Lunine does not accept the obvious young age implications of these observations, so he speculates, for example, that there must be some unknown source of methane).
    11. The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
    12. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the ‘billions of years’ mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks youngCreation 31(3):54–55, 2009).
    13. Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
    14. Neptune should be long since ‘cold’, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.
    15. Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
    16. Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of TritonIcarus 192(1):135–149, 2007. <doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.004>.
    17. Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.
    18. The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
    19. The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.
    20. “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The ‘waters above’ .
    21. Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an ad hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
    22. The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youthCreation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.
    23. The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid ‘moon’ orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youthCreation Matters 11(2):2, 2006).
    24. The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).
    25. The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar systemJournal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464687a.html
    26. Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin. Watters, T.R., et al., Evidence of Recent Thrust Faulting on the Moon Revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Science 329(5994):936–940, 20 August 2010; DOI: 10.1126/science.1189590 (“This detection, coupled with the very young apparent age of the faults, suggests global late-stage contraction of the Moon.”) NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon.
    27. The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.
    28. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
    29. The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely ‘young’ spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
    30. The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
    31. The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants.

Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth

  1. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
  2. ‘Stone age’ human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?
  3. Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
  4. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
  5. Common cultural ‘myths’ speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
  6. Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.

Last amended 8 May 2014.

Mayor and Council never consulted our community, and now declare themselves inaccessible because they are in deliberation after the Public Hearing. Who stands to benefit most from this LUC discharge?
To: Darren Braun <dbraun@abbotsford.ca>, Nick Crosman <ncrosman@abbotsford.ca>, George Murray <gmurray@abbotsford.ca>, “deJong.MLA, Mike” <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, Darryl <Darryl.Plecas.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “Gibson.MLA, Simon” <simon.gibson.mla@leg.bc.ca>, “systems@ombudsman.bc.ca” <systems@ombudsman.bc.ca>, peter.fassbender.mla@leg.bc.ca

Hello Darren and Nick:

To date you have not sent an answer to my question about what ‘grandfathering‘ means for our neighbourhood.

In the event that City Hall decides to make the underlying zoning RS3 apply to all 159 properties here, what does that mean for our future?

It becomes more clear all the time that land-use speculators want the land many of us purchased in good faith, with a known Land Use Contract limiting the homes to mobiles.

We do expect significant changes by 2024, because of Bill 17, signed by the Provincial Government in 2014, but no one expected the sudden move you made in the middle of summer holidays, 8 years before the sunset date. You people facilitated a developer’s application to change our 44 year old land use,  years before you needed to fulfil the Provincial discharge.

From the start this business has been flawed and rushed, but now you do not answer this one really important question, though I, and others have asked it, repeatedly,  in person and by email.

Why would you not answer something so critically important to us, before the Council meets again next Monday?

If you make all of us a RS3 zoning, a designation THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MOBILES OR MODULARS,…………then what assurance, or guarantees or promises are there in place from our City Hall leaders that will protect the present home owners?

In the event that someone needs to replace their existing mobile, for any number of reasons,…….what then?  Is it just ‘tough luck’.  You’ll have to sell and move off your land if you can’t come up with the money to build a new house?

Or what about all the people who have always kept up their homes, or even those who’ve recently brought in modulars? Their homes are in great shape, with years of viable life ahead.  Will the time come when our local government says, ‘Hey your ‘Grandfather‘ died so you can no longer keep a mobile on land zoned RS3?

The fact that you remain silent on this question makes me think that City Hall has capitulated to the pressure of people who want to get their hands on our land.

Why else would you not answer this question for the honest, tax-paying, ordinary people who live here?

Too much about the K.K. Gill proposal has been handled in a sloppy manner, one that favours this precedent-setting LUC discharge to the advantage of all the other land-lords waiting to flip their acquisitions for higher profit.

Despite all the flaws Council seems bent on pleasing land-use speculators.  None of this is about affordable housing, because to approve the first discharge is to open the flood-gates to RS3 and potentially ripping the land away from the current moderate income owners, by taxes rising to match the assessed value the speculators intend to build.

Why your silence about those people who can afford higher taxes, and want to go on living in their humble mobiles?  What was meant when your staff assured one of our neighbours not to worry because we are ‘grandfathered‘?  You do not say.

You need to spell that out, and before Council votes on this application.

There is much in the news about the criminal activity swirling around real estate.   I find much to admire about our Minister of Finance Mike de Jong, but his name comes up in the present LUC discussion. When a powerful government figure has a significant historical link to my community, there must be no hint of influence peddling.

All the more reason to remind you that Council almost approved this application by Gill, before almost anyone here had wind of those plans.

The application hardly missed a beat.  You, Darren and Nick did not alter a thing, even when you knew that our community was shocked and dismayed by the sudden move to change the ground beneath our feet.  The re-zoning sign did get put up, but contrary to your rules, the sign was blocked pretty much every evening and all weekends.  Even more seriously, the applicant did not add the sticker that your own regulations said had to be added immediately upon being granted a Public Hearing.  Mayor Braun dismissed that as of no consequence, given that some of the neighbourhood did show up for the Hearing.  Some were there, but it was not thanks to our Mayor or any of the Councillors, or the complete absence of prior consultation by anyone at City Hall.

Council wants this to be a done deal, so [with] your own rules are irrelevant.

Mayor Braun allowed proponents to speak, who said they lived here, but gave no address.

One man, of unknown address said he was a one-third owner of a property here.  Minister of Finance Mike de Jong was once, and may still be a one-third owner of a property here. That might be mere coincidence.  The Gill application is very consequential to our entire community, yet to date you refuse to answer a fundamental question as to how much of an impact this change this will set in motion.

Mr Gill, the owner of the subject property invoked Mike de Jong’s name, how the MLA advocated for and and got approval of Bill 17, as a reason why Council should approve his application.

Our Minister of Finance has many dealings with China.  He is also an active buyer and seller of real estate.  There has been a lot of corruption in money laundering that honest realtors have begged the government to address:  The land has become very valuable to speculators and we sense that we, the owners of this land, have become disposable to the rich and powerful who want it.   So please do not make this look shady business, by refusing to answer the community, that you couldn’t be bothered to consult beforehand.

From Ike Awgu, Huffington Post,  06/07/16


It is not simply a situation whereby the wealthy from abroad have come to love our cold weather (in Toronto) or rainy season (in Vancouver), Canada’s global cities have become a place where the international wealthy but corrupt can clean and park their illegal cash. 

At least 85 real estate companies in Canada have not implemented a plan showing how they are trying to detect money laundering or other suspicious transactions; and why would they? This is a commission-based business, remember? 

Cities like Vancouver have become places where corrupt Chinese officials can openly flaunt their money. Money that at its core, represents a theft of wealth from the Chinese people, the majority of whom still have an average income of around $10,000 Canadian a year — or a fifth of what the average Canadian earns. 

We are turning a blind eye to a massive theft of wealth from poor people on the other side of the world — and for the most part we are doing it on purpose. 

“The realtors appear not to be taking the rules [for detecting money laundering] or the reporting obligations seriously, and Fintrac seems to not be too concerned when they see mass non-compliance.”


The swift and shoddy manner in which Abbotsford’s leadership has come at my community smells bad.  You need to show us that nothing underhand is going on, with our local government.  So far not much looks above board or honest.

Do not yank affordable housing away from those who own it, to give it into the hands of people Council wants to please.

Please answer the simple question about ‘grandfathering‘.

Thank you,

Gerda Peachey

A neighbour got this at his door today.  Looks like the realtors got a whiff of an injured neighbourhood.  Can it be that they, like the speculators figure they had our unique little spot of affordable housing all tied up, in a neat little gift, offered up by our trusted leaders as a sacrifice to the moneyed and influential folk in Abbotsford?

Clearly the motley trailer dwelling low-lifes never factored in Council and Planning Dept. deliberations.  A mere ten days notice is good enough for that riff-raff to get wind of the big plans we have for them.

Some nice ‘affordable housing‘ there boys.  ‘Easy pickins’.  Just got to get a fast by-law amendment jammed through, before anyone living there gets wind of what we’re licking our chops over.

I’ve never met Dave Andrews, and he really might be a sterling sort of chap, but I sincerely hope that as he peddles his trade in my neighbourhood, he has enough integrity to let people know that if they sell here, they will be hard pressed to find anywhere from Lions Bay to Hope,….anything to compare with the lovely properties we currently own here.

Realtors and speculators are engaged in legal activity, to be sure.   But this is a shabby business our trusted leaders are involved in.  Our community should have been consulted, given information, given TIME to ponder and prepare for the removal of our Land Use Contracts by the final year of 2024.

Now we see a rush to remove an LUC – piecemeal – a move that I believe will unleash a flood of similar requests from people who bought, not to live here, but to push for a re-zoning that will radically alter our neighbourhood.

City Hall needs to stop and study this unique oasis of 159 homes, not let land-use speculators drive their decision making process.

We had a Public ‘Hearing’.  We spoke, in fact the majority pleaded with Council, not to grant the applicant’s request…….Was there anyone high up above us, on that lofty platform,……. listening?

Lest you think I’m kind of over-reacting,…..bear with a bit more background.  Council was poised to approve this by-law amendment on July 25th.  The earliest notice anyone here got was a postcard in the mail on July 14th, and some even later.  Many of the neighbours were away,…..it was after all summer vacation time.  There was no re-zoning sign on the subject property.  Please look at a calendar, and note that four of those days are week-ends when no city staff are available.

We managed with so precious little time to meet one another and talk and contact city staff, and write emails and make phone calls.  But it was a ridiculous, insulting and disdainful amount of time for our community to realize what Council planned to do.

They had to cancel the first hearing because it was illegal.  We asked staff this,…..’If the Public Hearing had not been stopped, on that very day, and if, as was expected the Mayor and Council had voted to approve the application,……..then if later on it was made known to Council that their vote was on a flawed application, one that was out of compliance with their own rules,………..then, would that decision been rendered null and void?  And the answer from staff was “NO“.  That decision would have remained. The applicant would be approved to rip out the mobile, first removal of LUC in 44 years, and replace it with a large (3 – storey is what staff told us) house and suite.

So that is the kind of slip-shod leadership that runs Abbotsford. Apparently they can be sloppy, make serious mistakes, and there is no recourse for the public.  Upon further inquiry, the staff said our only option as a community would have been to get legal advice.

Hhmmm. That is not likely to happen.  I’ve met a few neighbours, who bought because it was all they could afford.  They love it here, want to remain for a long time,  but are afraid that property taxes will rise if large houses replace mobiles, forcing them to sell because they just manage to make ends meet now.

There is little need for City Hall to do what is right, because people here don’t earn enough to think of suing anyone.  Why would anyone want to sue their own city council anyway?  Government is impervious, protected, shielded from the consequences of their decisions.  Citizens pay out of their own pocket to hire lawyers while the city pays out of those same pockets to pay their lawyers.   A lose, lose all the way for beleaguered citizens.

MLA Darryl Plecas understands that the ten-day minimum number of days required for a local government to notify affected residents of an upcoming Public Hearing is inadequate, and assured us that he would bring this up with Peter Fassbender.

Darryl thinks the minimum should be raised from ten to thirty days. Our properties, for most ordinary people, is our biggest financial investment, so that should be the absolute MINIMUM period of time to give people notice. Enough to allow them a fair chance at engaging in a discussion about the impact of proposed zoning changes.

Having a Mayor and Council be something more substantial than automatons, rubber-stamping staff recommendations would be an improvement too.