Ancient. Where is the proof?

20180826_200826

The determination of just how old the universe might be is a daunting and complicated endeavor.  As a student of science, I will readily admit that in many ways it appears that the universe might be very old.  If we assume that everything we now see has existed since the beginning, and nothing has changed.  If we assume that God did not create everything, as the Bible suggests, a few thousand years ago (which is the basis for current atheistic science).  If we assume that we could know the ratio of the so called parent and daughter isotopes in various rocks when they were created (we cannot). If we assume that the light from the stars is not being affected by anything (such as the 95% of the universe we cannot measure) and they are therefore exactly as far away as they appear, then one would easily be led to believe that the universe is quite old.  (1)

However, Dr. John Baumgardner, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and he clearly believes the evidence does NOT indicate an old earth or an old universe.  He states “Most people… including most scientists, are not aware of the systematic and glaring conflict between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods for dating…”(2)  He notes the vast differences that result when using different chemical methods of dating.  For example, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates found in the zircons of Pre-cambrian granite, the age of the fossil layer is only a few thousand years old. Yet Uranium in the same crystals gives an entirely different (and much older) result.

Dr. Baumgardner notes that the present rate of uplift for the Himalayan mountains and the rate of ocean mineralization also point to a young age for the earth. In fact at their current rate of uplift, if these mountains are a mere 1 million years old, they should be 40 miles high!  And of course, the presence of unmineralized proteins in dinosaur bones from many locations should place a limit of a few thousand years at most on the age of the bones. (3)

Then he tackles the thorny issue of light from distant stars. This is generally thought to show the universe is billions of years old. Although it involves principles such as cosmic inflation, general relativity, and the place of the earth in the universe, it  may be said that Dr. Baumgardner, and many other scientists, believe that there is no reason to reject the possibility of a young universe, because there are far too many unexplained variables to compute any certain age at all.  (See blog entitled Bang… and nothing.)  “If, instead, the cosmos has the earth near its center, then its early history is radically different from that of all big-bang models.”(4) In fact, the massive distribution of matter near the center of any exploding model of the universe could alter the time gradient drastically, slowing time almost to a standstill (relative to the other/outer areas of expansion) if earth were indeed near the center.

We can imagine the possibility that as written in the Creation Science website, “factors combine in various ways: 1. A decrease in the speed of light. 2. An expansion of space. 3. Large concentrations of dark matter with each galaxy. 4. Dark matter concentrated near the center of the universe. 5. Stars dimmer earlier in their history. 6. An age of the universe somewhat larger than 10,000 years. In addition, there may be other factors that we are not aware of. But even the factors we know about seem sufficient to explain the observed universe within a short time frame.”(1)  All this being said, there is no reason to rule out a young earth based on science.  The Bible story is no less believable now than at the time it was written.

Yet one more point bears mention here.  Most atheistic scientists would discount it.  (See Unethicalists for reasons why).  Nevertheless, for a Christian it makes logical sense.  We know that a cell cannot operate without all its parts (DNA, RNA, nucleus, organelles, cell membrane, proteins, etc.)  No part of the cell will function meaningfully or reproduce without all the others. Therefore isn’t it logical that all cells were created intact, fully functional at the moment of their creation?  Likewise Mankind is not functional without the brain, liver, eyes, heart, skin, and all organs functioning.  So it is easy to believe that Adam was a fully formed, functional, adult human being at the moment of his creation.

Is it not equally possible, in fact likely, that an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful Creator God would create a universe fully functional from the moment of its creation? What good are the stars in the beautiful sky if Adam will not seen them for millions of years?  Why create them at all? Creating light in transit is not a difficult thing for God.  It is only a difficult thing for us!  Yet who are we (our most brilliant scientists still do not understand the nature of light itself, and cannot tell if is is a particle or wave… so they say it is both).  Who are we to tell God how He should order his new and wondrous creation?

 

(1) Is The Universe Young?  https://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/universe.html

(2)  in six days, john r. baumgardner, Master Books, p 234.

(3) Ibid, p. 237.

(4) Ibid p. 238.

Try, Try, Trilobite.


20180907_105951

Most persons who have read anything about the fossil record, geological strata, or the theory of evolution have heard of the trilobite.  It appears in the lowest, supposedly oldest layers of rock.  It is called the earliest, most primitive of creatures.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest trilobites known from the fossil record are dated to about 530 million years ago. It “appears suddenly” (as if suddenly created) in the fossil record and flourished throughout the Cambrian and Permian periods and was then suddenly destroyed in a mass extinction. (Like the flood?)

It is interesting to note that even Wikipedia admits “By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. “(1) This of course supports Creation.  It is not supportive of evolution.  “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups do not seem to exist.” (2)

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling goes on to explain that in addition to being highly diversified, they were highly developed and advanced.  Let that sink in.  The first creature we can find in the strata was highly developed, highly advanced, and highly diversified!

Often regarded as primitive creatures, their anatomy reveals that they are,  perhaps,  the most complex of all invertebrate creatures.”(3) Dr. Snelling describes their sophisticated aggregate schizochroal eyes as “the most sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by any organism“. (4)

So let’s stop there. The most highly developed, highly sophisticated optical system ever developed appears suddenly, at the the lowest layers of the geologic record.  It appears there with absolutely NO possible evolutionary ancestors.  It appears fully formed.  It appears all over the world.  Any geologist who does not recognize the ossibility (or likelihood) of creation in these facts  is looking with both eyes closed.

I particularly like the following quote from the American History of Natural History website,  “Yet dealing with the age of trilobites… the age of our planet… the age of the universe, often seems beyond the realm of what our “primitive” brain can deal with. Sometimes we imagine we’ve got all these Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth and Punctuated Equilibria things figured out — with all the adjacent, Plate Tectonic and Shifting Polarity mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure. Apparently, for a species that has existed in its present form for far less than a million years, and whose entire lineage can presently be traced back some 14 million years, we Homo sapiens can be an arrogant bunch.” (5) Arrogant, prideful, and foolish, I would add.

Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction”
Proverbs 18:2 “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

(2) ibid.

(3) Dr, Andrew Snelling, in six days, Master Books, pp. 293-4.

(4) ibid.

(5) https://www.amnh.org/our-research/paleontology/paleontology-faq/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/geologic-time

(For more information see blogs on “The Data in the Strata” and “Just the Facts”)

Bang… and nothing

img_20170214_115107928

Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming.  Yet we are told by supposed “scientists” that it is an established fact.  What utter nonsense.

Problem #1.  The vacuum catastrophe.  Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream.  If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Someone wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness.  Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing.  This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (1)

So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for 
General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum
energy has a real physical meaning.  In fact, the 
Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by 
about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude!  This 
is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which 
remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics
in the modern era.

Problem #2.  95% dark matter? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles).  What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no.  How do we know they exist?  We don’t.   Why do the astronomers suggest they are there?  Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there.  Or else the formulas are wrong!  (Now there’s an idea!)  As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, ” we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (2)

Problem #3.  In the first stages of the universe there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger).  This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation.  Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form.  Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means.  If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy.  In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence.  There was no other energy in existence.

Problem #4.  The Big Bang clearly violates 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Every counter to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present.

Problem #5. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy.  The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few.  The energy had to come from somewhere.  It could not create itself (See Problem #4) and it could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(2)

Problem #6.  The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light.  The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on current measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here.  They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be much greater than the speed of light.  This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories.  Just not when it involves Creation.

Problem #7.  If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and anti matter should have been expected.  Yet we find no such evidence.  Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none  answer the question.  All require some “other” force or condition.  In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons.  Only quarks and no anti-quarks.  Only protons and no anti-protons.

Problem #8.  With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant!  Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc.  The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc.   In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant.   This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value.  We shall see…

  1. http://www.redshiftacademy.com/index.php/redshift/topic/the_vacuum_catastrophe
  2.  John M. Cimbala, in six days, p. 203, Masterbooks.com.
  3. “Big Bang Theory — An Overview.” All About Science. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
  4. Space.com, New Map of Dark Matter Puts the Big Bang Theory on Trial (Kavli Roundtable) By Adam Hadhazy | 
  5. “Cambridge Cosmology: Hot Big Bang Model.” Cambridge University. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
  6. Castellanos, Joel. “The Shape of Space.” NonEuclid. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/space.html
  7. Felder, Gary. “Beyond the Big Bang: Inflation and the Very Early Universe.” North Carolina State University. 2002.
  8. “The Geometry of the Universe.” Astronomy 162. University of Tennessee. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html
  9. Marmet, Paul. “Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.” 21st Century, Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1990. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

 

Individualism

person with body painting
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Pexels.com

Sometimes it just comes down to who you want to call God.  Do you want to believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator (One who might have rules and deserve worship)? Or would you rather put yourself in the place of God?  Both metaphysics and observation of reality suggest that we are sentient beings. They also suggest that we have choices in life.  I would propose that an infinitely wise God, in order to create beings who might truly CHOOSE to love Him, would create a universe in which they had the option NOT to love Him.  In fact they might have the option to despise Him, ridicule Him, and even deny His very existence.  Such is our very society. We get to choose.

David Foster WallaceThis Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, writes,Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.”

I see evidence of the truth of that statement daily when I work in the ER.  I have seen thousands of people who chose to worship sex,  drugs, or alcohol, and I have seen the havoc and destruction it has wreaked in their lives. We all know of persons who worshiped popularity, and were crushed when it vanished.  Some have worshiped themselves, through vanity, and many have slipped into despair as their power, looks, or influence faded.

One of the things that offends many atheists is the idea of a personal God.  They are often critical of the idea that God could be described as a “jealous God”.  Richard Dawkins wrote, in the God Delusion,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins has been quoted thousands of times, and hailed as a hero for his bold words by those who are offended at the thought of a Supreme Being.  (See also blog posts on Science and Scientism,  and Differing with Dawkins).

On the other hand, C.S. Lewis wrote, in the Problem of Pain,

You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect,’ is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.” (1)

And somewhere, supposedly hiding from you in this vast and beautiful universe is the REAL God. Or perhaps he really is all around you.  But the point is that you, personally, get to choose in this life whether to believe in him or to love and worship Him.  You see, all though history, God has allowed persons to either believe in Him, or to worship other Gods. History is littered with gods (small g) who have been relegated to the trash heaps of time; Baal, Osiris, Marduk, or the entire Roman Pantheon of gods.

Today, we still have the same choice.  Do you worship the god of science (scientism)?  Or do you worship the Creator God of the Universe who has given us the Bible?  It is an important choice.  Choose wisely.

Science vs. Scientism

sky lights space dark
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/

noun

  1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
    • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

     

Or as Wikipedia explains it:

Scientism is the ideology of science. The term scientism generally points to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

 

I believe we are a world awash in scientism.  The pace of scientific advance has been nothing short of amazing for the last 70 years.  Yet the claims and braggadocio of scientists have so completely and utterly outpaced the science itself that an entire generation of youth believe quite literally that any thing that claims to be scientific must therefore be true. Now the supposed “heros” of science, such as Stephen Hawking, can write about any untestable and unprovable topic as though they are authorities.  Their opinions on the origin of the universe are assumed to be more authoritative than God’s Holy Word.

As Massimo Pigliucci , the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York, writes in the Blog of the APA, “there is a pernicious and increasingly influential strand of thought these days — normally referred to as “scientism” — which is not only a threat to every other discipline, including philosophy, but risks undermining the credibility of science itself.”

Scientism is not science.  It is an ideology.  It is a belief.  Scientism is the illegitimate offspring of pop culture and science, with characteristics reflecting vastly more media sensationalism than lab or research procedures. Some would even say it is a religion.  But it is absolutely NOT a proper foundation for assessing things like ethics, morals, or the worth of life itself.  Scientism is to science as Judas was to the disciples. It is a meaningless belief in the public show of science without a fundamental humble appreciation for the absolutely amazing and marvelous scientific laws that govern the universe, the atom, and all of life itself.

In a sense, Scientism is self-annihilating.  It takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, but that is not itself a scientific claim. It can neither be verified nor falsified by any scientific testing or reasoning.  Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless based on its own views.  Yet its influence over generations of youth and young adults remains unchallenged.

Austin L Hughes,  Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(2) Hughes rightly points out that what is so dangerous about scientism is that its practitioners pretend to be scientific, and imbue their writing with pseudo-scientific jargon designed to impress the masses.  But in reality they are less than scientists, less than philosophers, and less than ethicists and epistemologists. They ignore the six rules of scientific study (see my earlier blog on Unethicalists) and bypass the internal and necessary rules of all these disciplines while pretending they have the answers from science.

Practitioners of scientism, like Stephen Hawking, propose grand theories without any proof.  They cling to evolution and the Big Bang as if it is their very life force.  They discard all facts which disagree with their fanatical evolutionary religiosity, and continue to propagate myths, such as the evolutionary tree, abiogenesis, and the infamous “magic” of the cosmological Big Bang.

So, from one scientist to another, and to all of my readers, it would be wise to learn the meaning and practice of real science (the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment), and how that contrasts to scientism. They could scarcely be more different concepts.

For a great read on scientism, please see the article below on the website crossway.org(1)

(1) https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-scientism/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=630f94d382-20180922+-+General+-+Scientism+and+Secularism&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-630f94d382-290916097

(2) http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

 

 

WWJS (What Would Jesus Say)

man holding sheep statuette
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To many modern Christians (apparently including even the Pope) evolution “must be accepted” because atheist scientists say it is true. Most of this site is dedicated to addressing  the scientific reasons that evolution cannot be true.  Scientist have had to make great leaps of faith in order to believe in evolution.  In fact some would say (this author included) they have had to abandon the scientific method.  (See Evolution… Just the Facts).  But that is not the point of this post.

There is another equally important point, at least equal to the ethical, scientific, and religious costs of believing in evolution. What is the scriptural cost of believing in evolution?  The first, and clearest example is the need to toss out the entire first chapter of Genesis. We must change our view of scripture, from God’s Holy Word, to mythology and allegory. We must in essence assume that the Bible is not True (capital T). We are then soon prone to toss out the Flood, the Ark, and all the those bothersome unscientific miracles in the New Testament. But at least we still believe in the Beatitudes, and in love you neighbor, we say.  At least we still believe in Jesus.  Or do we?

1 John Chapter 4 reads, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.”  Atheistic evolution excludes the possibility of the Creator God and his Son Jesus Christ. So by definition, the theory of evolution seems to clearly fall under the definition of antichrist.  Why are atheist professors so adamant that their young wards accept evolution?  Could it be because they themselves have accepted the religion of the antichrist?  Based on 1 John Chapter 4, one would have to believe this is possible.

Another fact often lost on those Christians who “choose” evolution, is that we must also call Jesus a liar.  In Matthew 19:4 Jesus describes the creation, and how God Himself created man, and woman and marriage.  In Matthew 25:34 Jesus describes a kingdom “prepared from the foundation of the world” for those who minister to the poor, and naked, and hungry. In Mark 13:19 he talks about the creation which God created.  In Matthew 24:37 Jesus discusses the Ark.  He talks about the event as if it were an established fact. He talks about Moses.  He mentions the prophet Elijah and Jonah.  He even mentions Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. He clearly accepted the OT, and treated the events recorded there as historical facts. Not only that, but nearly all Bible scholars accept that the Theophanies (times when God appeared in the OT) were actually appearances of the Pre-incarnate Christ.  So when God told Moses that He created the world in six days, it was actually Jesus, the Pre-incarnate Christ, who spoke.

It seems easy for us to ridicule the beliefs of ancient Baal worshipers and their orgies and human sacrifices.  It seems absurd when we view the polytheistic pagans of Greece and Rome, who seemed to have a different quirky god for every day of the week. How unscientific, we say.  But someday soon, will a future generation look back at a naive and scientifically illiterate generation of Christians in the late 20th century, saying “How could anyone actually have accepted the blathering unscriptural and unscientific idiocy of supposed scientists like Hawking and Dawkins?  The virtual black holes in their theories were so vast they swallowed up all vestiges of sentience and reason.”  God’s Word was clear. And science was clear as well. I believe that day will come, and soon.

 Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?”  Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation

Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.”

Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  ANM

 

Unethicalists

abstract achievement bright business
Photo by Jorge Jesus on Pexels.com

Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problems.

First, and simplest, it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that we should be ethical.  If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs.  We may steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive.  That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.

Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions.  One moral choice is just as good as another.  Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well.

However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old.  They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2)  Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact.

Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently.  The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation.  The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis.  So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science.  They prefer talking points to honesty.

In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists.  The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why, because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator.  But what about their version of “creation”?

Lets examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.

  1. Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded?  No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
  2. Can we be sure that A causes B?  No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred, or when or how or why it might have occurred.  In their own writings we can find much evidence to support this. So we cannot  be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
  3. Falsifiability.  Can the theory be disproved?  Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
  4. Can the principle be replicated in other studies.  Of course not.  No one can replicate the Big Bang.  If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only.  Never again to be “recreated” by humankind.
  5. Is the evidence as strong as the claim?  The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared.  Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing.
  6.  Occams razor. Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.  Yes.  God created the heavens and the earth.  Simple.

So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails!  It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH.  And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story.  And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.

 

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)