tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86188409558145873292024-03-18T04:44:00.312-04:00Creation Science TalkA discussion of Creation ScienceChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.comBlogger398125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-33699690977276953652024-02-12T17:19:00.000-05:002024-02-12T17:19:13.232-05:00The Biblical Prediction of Uniformitarian Geology.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpf-MQZuhXRpUoHlEZqR_awHgXM5IHPM_QMtqgo4kO4mqDq4LS5nNAkcla1zhhxSbztHFqnmTyWzkSHzGKQeHI7Filda2w9WzXf7JNGYA78I7RUHBXNNXrRsDGjCOnyxMtsm4BBPyIYeCNzY5Qafz0u1L_3b30pOQ8-ro4Gw15PyMAP2LaM8wSDebEIgjF/s296/hl.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="296" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpf-MQZuhXRpUoHlEZqR_awHgXM5IHPM_QMtqgo4kO4mqDq4LS5nNAkcla1zhhxSbztHFqnmTyWzkSHzGKQeHI7Filda2w9WzXf7JNGYA78I7RUHBXNNXrRsDGjCOnyxMtsm4BBPyIYeCNzY5Qafz0u1L_3b30pOQ8-ro4Gw15PyMAP2LaM8wSDebEIgjF/s1600/hl.jpg" width="296" /></a></div><br /> 2 Peter 3:3-6<br />3, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking
after their own lusts,<br />4, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell
asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.<br />5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens
were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:<br />6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now these verses could at least in part refer to people
questioning the Lord coming back because things continue as they always have
without any indication of him coming back, but it is also interesting that the
description of “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation” is also a perfect fit to the philosophy behind uniformitarian
geology, that the process is we observe going on the earth today are the same
forces that produced everything we see on the earth. Furthermore, there is a
direct connection to this idea of being responsible for people willingly
dismissing both creation and the flood. It literally nails the central idea of
uniformitarian geology on the head.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, we have these verses the notion that all things continue
the way they always have and that this notion that is responsible for people
being ignorant of both Biblical creation and the flood. This is a perfect fit
for uniformitarian geology because that is exactly the very concept that has
been used to get rid of both ideas from being considered acceptable concepts. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> These verses actually
predict that both concepts are going to be prevalent in what it refers to as
the last days. It is clear that the problem it is predicting involves both
ideas. You are you have those that are using the long time since Jesus’ first
coming as an excuse for denying the second coming, and you have those pushing
uniformitarian geology as a direct basis for denying both Biblical creation and
the Genesis Flood. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So yes, 2 Peter 3:3-6 does predict uniformitarian geology,
it also predicts a general that Christ is going to return. Both concepts are
present because they are connected. and they ultimately extend from the same
source, that is Satan seeking to get people to deny the word of God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3JlVGGJ" target="_blank">Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately OverlookCreation and the Flood by Simon Turpin</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b>Help support these articles.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank"><b>Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</b></a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank"><b>The Ultimate Answers Pack</b></a></div><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank"><b>Answers for Kids Box Set</b></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank"><b>The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</b></a></div><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank"><b>Warrior Press</b></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-85886870064929174012024-02-09T17:05:00.006-05:002024-02-09T17:05:33.693-05:00How Can We See Distant Starlight.<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO00VEbNbrqa4NetcKs9CDcQtc-yjMaZpRCAhm31IHnXxHSO5E726G7KCIHe3Z9mfHQCDzydBxdxlbs5Spp5M6Kxg6So6KhgLTR4jpWyN0mvfQzZgZe0DzC9G4Xbep_V2f2I8KJBT1WbQ-l2WU9tNripR0QfD2z9ihBO2cakqdcbG-clVFXGAVtfm8J2Jn/s320/Pleiades_s.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="231" data-original-width="320" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO00VEbNbrqa4NetcKs9CDcQtc-yjMaZpRCAhm31IHnXxHSO5E726G7KCIHe3Z9mfHQCDzydBxdxlbs5Spp5M6Kxg6So6KhgLTR4jpWyN0mvfQzZgZe0DzC9G4Xbep_V2f2I8KJBT1WbQ-l2WU9tNripR0QfD2z9ihBO2cakqdcbG-clVFXGAVtfm8J2Jn/s1600/Pleiades_s.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>The biggest challenge from a creation science standpoint
given the fact that the speed of light is finite is being able to see stars
that are more than 6000 light years away.
Several solutions to this problem have been proposed but unfortunately,
some of them produce more problems than they solve.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first solution proposed was that God created the light
already in transit. There are two main problems with this idea. The first
problem is the fact that there is nothing scientific about it, it is simply a
patch to make the problem go away. The second problem is that the overwhelming
majority of what we see in the sky never actually happened, basically making
God an author of fiction. Finally, there is nothing to gain from this solution
other than fixing a problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second proposed solution Is it the speed of light has
decayed since creation, making this decaying part of the fall. The first
problem with this is that it did not really explain what it was originally
intended to explain which was redshift. The second problem turned out to be the
poor quality of some of the past data being used as evidence. Its biggest
problem was the relationship between the speed of light, mass, and energy. The
simple fact is that the decaying speed of light would cause way more problems
than it fixes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One little-known proposed solution was that the speed of
light was slower within the sun's magnetosphere than in the space between the
stars. This idea had the benefit of making testable predictions, those
predictions were about what would happen when the Voyager spacecraft passed the
sun's heliopause. However, this idea was entirely falsified by the fact that
the two-way single delay continues to increase after BOTH Voyager spacecraft
past the sun's heliopause.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One solution that remains quite popular, based on general
relativity was formulated by Dr. Russell
Humphreys, called the White Hole cosmology envisions the universe as bounded,
that is the matter does not continue indefinitely but it actually has an edge
to it, as opposed to The Big Bang cosmology where marriage just keeps going on
and on forever. In this model, the water above the firmament described in
Genesis 1:7 and Psalms 148:4 serves as the boundary layer along with the earth
starting at the center. This is not geocentric in the classic sense in that the
universe does not rotate around the Earth, we are merely physically located
near the center. One of the consequences of this model would be a large amount
of time dilation in the Earth's location, including the possibility of time
actually being stopped on Earth while God was creating the distant stars. The
result of this time dilation would be that in dissent locations of the universe
there would be plenty of time for light to reach the earth while from our
position it could still be about 6000 years old. One of the added consequences
of this model is that it is capable of explaining the type 1A supernova
measurements that have been interpreted as an accelerating expansion resulting
in the idea of dark energy to save the Big Bang but doing so without the need
for dark energy. This is because the residual time dilation would produce a
slight blue shift relative to the redshift caused by the expansion of the
universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The most recent solution called the Anisotropic Synchrony
Convention was first proposed by Dr. Jason Lisle and is based on the fact that
under Special and General Relativity there is no absolute now. That is that
there is a wide range of how you can synchronize clocks in a relativistic
universe the standard way of doing so which results in light from distant
galaxies being millions and billions of years old is called the Isotropic
Synchrony Convention. In this convention for synchronizing clocks, the one-way
speed of light is the same in all directions and for all observers. Now
according to the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, the speed of light is
infinite when it is coming towards the observer at 1/2 the speed of light when
going away from the observer. Under these circumstances, you would be observing
everything in the universe as it happens, and there is no dissent Starlight
problem. See the references for a full description of this concept.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly, after all these years we have not
just one but two workable ways of solving the distance Starlight problem.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that they are not mutually exclusive.
both of these solutions rely on well-established physics that has been around
for over 100 years. Ultimately the problem only exists from the standpoint of
the unbiblical Big Bang cosmology and insisting that there is only one approach
to synchronizing clocks in a relativistic universe.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">References: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="381" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mu1ToKvrVxk" width="526" youtube-src-id="mu1ToKvrVxk"></iframe></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="347" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YXIQwtvPaHU" width="518" youtube-src-id="YXIQwtvPaHU"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="334" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pTn6Ewhb27k" width="523" youtube-src-id="pTn6Ewhb27k"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="352" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aXRTORJdHR8" width="540" youtube-src-id="aXRTORJdHR8"></iframe></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3CEk5Er" target="_blank"><b>Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise Hardcover</b></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3BfcpbH" target="_blank"><b>Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D.</b></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b>Help support these articles.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank"><b>Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</b></a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank"><b>The Ultimate Answers Pack</b></a></div><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank"><b>Answers for Kids Box Set</b></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank"><b>The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</b></a></div><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank"><b>Warrior Press</b></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><br />Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-16933656462898017132024-02-08T10:08:00.003-05:002024-02-08T10:08:57.529-05:00Dose the Bible Teach Geocentrism?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhByI8rZ_0w7CqB2d3Y3q9C_NaOmMPu_VtZ7hJCO4yKC1BFzPv2uQc709CbeyBwBCegV_HWBkN5IGvUNRZDwuDGn1ZqDhDZHfhx-asr0te3R96a0vKTEn8u4tWewkWmDPBBX0PAPzlKM5rVi4EQDxfudkStt3qXdRQUU1e-ecmtaiiaZqJ8V0nIzb7G6HcP/s414/earth.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="279" data-original-width="414" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhByI8rZ_0w7CqB2d3Y3q9C_NaOmMPu_VtZ7hJCO4yKC1BFzPv2uQc709CbeyBwBCegV_HWBkN5IGvUNRZDwuDGn1ZqDhDZHfhx-asr0te3R96a0vKTEn8u4tWewkWmDPBBX0PAPzlKM5rVi4EQDxfudkStt3qXdRQUU1e-ecmtaiiaZqJ8V0nIzb7G6HcP/s320/earth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">While the case for Biblical geocentrism, is better than that
for a Flat Earth, geocentrics tend to make some of the same mistakes that flat
earthers make, the big one is assuming that the word earth always refers to the
planet Earth despite the fact that God personally calls the dry land earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land Earth, and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">What this indicates is that unless the context of its usage
indicates otherwise the word “earth” refers only to dry land. Now sometimes the
context will indicate that it refers to dirt or even the entire planet, but dry
land is the default meaning. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Another common mistake egocentrics make is assuming that
descriptions of motion in the Bible are absolute, despite the fact that motion
is entirely relative. For example, if I see a car going by me at 55 miles an
hour an occupant of the car sees me going by at 55 miles an hour in the
opposite direction. In this case, most of the verses used to support
geocentrism are simply describing what is happening from the perspective of an
observer on the Earth. In fact, the only actual difference between geocentrism and
heliocentrism is a choice of coordinate systems. Naturally, when doing
calculations involving planetary orbits a heliocentric model is easier to work
with than a geocentric one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Job 38: 14, It is turned as clay to the seal, and they stand
as a garment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Here's a verse they referred to the rotation of the Earth.
It particularly makes sense when the word “earth” is seen as referring to dry
land. This makes the analogy of the earth being turned as clay a perfect fit to
the rotation of the planet Earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They often tend to fail to understand that in some cases,
particularly the Book of Revelations, the Bible is describing an event from an
observational perspective here on earth and not necessarily from a scientific
perspective. For example, revelation describes a mountain being cast into the
sea, this sounds a lot like an asteroid impact described in non-scientific
terminology. This differs from those that claim their Genesis is a metaphor is
that you are still taking the description in the Bible as accurate, but just
using words that would have been available when the text was actually written.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ultimately once you realize that all that motion is
relative, the question of geocentrism versus heliocentrism pretty much goes
away. This is because they are both just choices of a frame of reference. Now
it is true that when dealing with the solar system a heliocentric frame of
reference is the easiest to work with. However, when calculating the orbit of a
satellite around the Earth or a trajectory to the moon and back a geocentric
reference frame Is the simplest. By the way, it is just as legitimate under the
proper circumstances to use a lunar-centric model, a Martin-centric model, and
so on. This is not an argument against absolute truth, but simply a recognition
that what is being described in the Bible verses used by geocentric is simply
describing where is Being described from the standpoint of an observer on
Earth, something that makes sense when that is someone's perspective that most
of your readers are going to have.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal">Help support these articles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><p><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-34640937193418520132024-02-07T11:08:00.001-05:002024-02-07T11:08:27.428-05:00Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijOwrIBlOHbIfKC_b_YNMvLudEtGrTnwBJ0TJ_Xj1lxarYOyl_QCh5xGSTQAb__n-7sFVxrIWyCmwMhpXL6V8Pd8faOswsJ_2ywg5YNE42KDbkHG4SxYvwiNtpxRJpBDsR7qJWCXLFWGtEtsPkN-Uluapp2vu4k70Zt1WU_FJ8sxOXCAfFGUfcFTGDED1j/s414/earth.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="279" data-original-width="414" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijOwrIBlOHbIfKC_b_YNMvLudEtGrTnwBJ0TJ_Xj1lxarYOyl_QCh5xGSTQAb__n-7sFVxrIWyCmwMhpXL6V8Pd8faOswsJ_2ywg5YNE42KDbkHG4SxYvwiNtpxRJpBDsR7qJWCXLFWGtEtsPkN-Uluapp2vu4k70Zt1WU_FJ8sxOXCAfFGUfcFTGDED1j/s320/earth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In recent years there have been claims that the Bible
teaches a Flat Earth. There are even modern-day flat earthers who pushed this
claim as support for their flat Earth claims. You have probably heard that Columbus
proved that the Earth was round and that he was opposed in his voyage but
Bible-believing Christians who thought the earth was flat based on the
Bible. However, none of these claims are
actually true neither does the Bible teach Flat Earth. On the contrary, you can
actually use the Bible to support a spherical rotating earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We will start this discussion with Columbus. First of all,
he never proved that the earth was round, the results of his voyage actually
provided no evidence one way or the other.
His idea was to reach India by sailing west and he never made it because
the American continent was in the way, and he did not even realize it.
Furthermore, no one with any degree of education in Europe at the time believed
the earth was flat. The fact that the earth is a sphere was common knowledge, a
fact that had been demonstrated about 2000 years earlier. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Nobody opposed Columbus because they thought the earth was
flat, the real problem was that he had overestimated the size of Asia and
underestimated the size of the circumference of the earth in planning his first
voyage. In fact, if the American continent had not been here, it is quite
likely that no one would ever have heard of Christopher Columbus because he
probably would have never made it to Asia. After all, the actual distance was much
further than he thought. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">If this is the case, why do people think that Columbus
proved the earth was round and that he was opposed by flat earthers? We owe
this bit of fiction to the imagination of Washington Irving who wrote a
fictional account of Columbus’s life called A History of the Life and Voyages
of Christopher Columbus. It was this book that got the myth started. This
aspect was actually an attack on the Bible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The first thing that needs to be noted is the fact that
there is no place in the Bible where you will find the word earth and flat
together let alone anything that actually says the earth is flat. Consequently,
any claim that the Bible teaches a Flat Earth needs to be based on interpreting
passages as showing it in some way. The most common way of doing this is to
assume that the Bible teaches a stereotypical Flat Earth cosmology and read it
into any passage they can. This of course makes the argument a form of circular
reasoning. However, this is common with most arguments against the Bible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Genesis 1: 6, And God said, Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The word “firmament” used in the King James Bible is one of
their favorites because someone who has not investigated this word can easily
think it implies a solid structure. Unfortunately, simply looking up the word
is of no help because those that do not imply a solid structure simply define
it as referring to the sky. However, its etymology helps because it takes away
the implication of solidity. The word “firmament” comes from the Latin word
firmamentum which means "a support, or a strengthening." This does
not require solidity, for example, water supports a boat floating on it, but
the water is not solid. Furthermore, the Hebrew word rāqîaʿ simply referred to
an expanse. Consequently, the only reason for concluding that the firmament
refers to a solid structure is a bias that assumes that the word must refer to
a dome in a Flat Earth model. Both words actually fit with General relativity’s
depiction of space because not only is space seen as an expanse but the
functional supporting structure of the universe as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They will also claim that phrases such as ‘the ends of the
earth” or “corners of the earth” show that the earth has to be flat. First of
all their own model lacks corners unless they artificially insert them outside
their map. It also ignores the fact that God himself defines “earth” as
referring to dry land in Genesis 1:10.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land Earth, and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Once you see that “earth” in the Bible refers to dry land
unless the context indicates otherwise, all Flat Earth interpretations
collapse. This is because the dry land that is the continents of the planet
Earth, does indeed have ends, and some places can be considered
corners, even though this terminology is most likely a reference to the four
cardinal directions at north, south, east, and west rather than actual corners.
The simple fact is that there are no verses in the Bible that can objectively
be interpreted as teaching a Flat Earth, but there are some that point to the
Earth is a sphere in the void of space.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Isaiah 40:22, It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This verse both speaks of the circle of the earth implying
that the earth is round and speaks of God stretching out the heavens, which
would seem to be a reference to the expansion of space that is observed in the
form of galactic redshifts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Proverbs 8:27, When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">compass: go around something in a circular course.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is one verse that flat earthers conveniently avoid
because it clearly indicates that the earth is a sphere. The face of the depth
would be the surface of the ocean and you only get a circular course set on the
surface of the oceans if the Earth is a sphere.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Job 26:7, He stretcheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This verse describes the Earth as hanging upon nothing, here
is one of those times where the word “earth” clearly refers to the entire
planet. Saying that God hangeth the Earth on nothing is a good ancient way of
describing the fact that there is nothing material holding up the Earth and
keeping it from falling into the sun. The Earth is kept up why its orbital
motion around the sun. This goes against a Flat Earth because such models
inevitably have the Earth supported by something.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Job 38: 14, It is turned as clay to the seal, and they stand
as a garment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Here's a verse they referred to the rotation of the Earth.
it particularly makes sense when the word “earth” is seen as referring to dry
land. This makes the analogy of the earth being turned as clay a perfect fit to
the rotation of the planet Earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal">So, the Bible does not teach a Flat Earth. On the contrary,
what the Bible does say about the planet Earth is a perfect fit to the Earth
being a rotating sphere in the emptiness of space around it. This is a myth
that is popular among those who scoff at the Bible, and sadly it has nabbed a
few Christians in the process. However, it is also a myth that is completely
untrue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">References: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth" target="_blank">A flat earth, and other nonsense</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/" target="_blank">Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3UshkAH" target="_blank">Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately OverlookCreation and the Flood by Simon Turpin</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3uhpPUD" target="_blank">Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 GeologicQuestions Paperback by Mike Oard and, John k. Reed </a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><p><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-16354541525248131162024-02-06T08:57:00.000-05:002024-02-06T08:57:49.290-05:00 Scientific Elitism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC6h8l2TNNg7ZCEtmWn15aY4CUxZj1upBIuzQiVCttUEjKihMeUdNl9DYfojM3QI5LQwHuiKELkmOECj_rPZIBmrX-Yr5jqCyCSc3FKSv7C6X0ulOksYDA1sj0CPD8Hq84_P5IfXAshEt6a-Ix9xL4NcTtNWJBFx1sUzmULhCKTcEUsFXPoOAZ8YXiywYH/s690/Capture.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="385" data-original-width="690" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC6h8l2TNNg7ZCEtmWn15aY4CUxZj1upBIuzQiVCttUEjKihMeUdNl9DYfojM3QI5LQwHuiKELkmOECj_rPZIBmrX-Yr5jqCyCSc3FKSv7C6X0ulOksYDA1sj0CPD8Hq84_P5IfXAshEt6a-Ix9xL4NcTtNWJBFx1sUzmULhCKTcEUsFXPoOAZ8YXiywYH/s320/Capture.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal">There is a trend these days, particularly online, to just
trust the experts. The experts of course are those that hold to the politically
correct views such as Big Bang to man evolution, man-caused climate change, and
a lot more. Inherent in this idea is the notion of Scientific elitism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"> Scientific elitism is
the notion that approved scientists are not to be questioned when they say
something considered scientific. Of course, the only scientists who have this
privilege of being unquestioned are those who follow the official party line
and accept whatever leftist agenda exists on the topic they are talking about. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have encountered criticism simply for not blindly
accepting what is said about evolution, climate change, and other topics. That
is the problem with such elitist attitudes. you are expected to blindly follow
the elites even if the direction they are going seems ridiculous. What a lot of
people do not realize is that such attitudes are completely unscientific. What
is actually scientific Is being able to question and even refute claims that
are made in the name of science. No matter how scientific an idea may be
originally, it ceases to be truly scientific when you are no longer allowed to
question it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The moment somebody tells you that you may not question what
a scientist has said, the person making the statement is engaging in scientific
elitism and not true science. Elitist attitudes are among the biggest dangers
that genuine science faces. This is because not only can scientific elitism
prevent progress in specific fields being discussed by the elites but in
related fields as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The danger that elitist attitudes in science pose is that it
actually hinder scientific development preventing ideas such as evolution or
old Earth geological theories from being challenged. Even if the theory being
challenged is ultimately correct the challenge still makes real science
stronger. This is because the challenge will strengthen a correct theory. Not
only does it open the door to correcting errors in current theory, but it opens
the door to replacement if it is needed.<o:p></o:p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal">The Internet has done wonders for the democratization of
science by making both scientific research and the ability to do scientific
research available to more people. While this does allow for cranks to appear,
it also allows legitimate challenges to establishment science that can open the
door to breakthroughs. Being able to challenge even the most strongly accepting
theories is a critical aspect that strengthens real science. Scientific elitism
is it danger to this critical ability to challenge existing theory, and
consequently, it is a danger to science itself<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk121240127">Help support this blog.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><p><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-57617619350082684682024-02-05T10:44:00.009-05:002024-02-05T18:23:45.690-05:00 Which one is more true and believable, 'Genesis' or the 'Big Bang Theory'?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWtQI4drn2IVwsIaolCW1Y6gVJusRzxl-RXoYjTHWu2V6wFiVste4zSjvCJdgHBt38AqTBRClzjvyY2N_1SthqCiJl46t7h8j5ZZsHep8df0UE1pIlKP8PeKKenEGzdMvEkEdnWDh1FUj08ba2-DwzBCAj2acPZGuwHUBaweAbudWr381EiOhX0Me8SSic/s340/gb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="252" data-original-width="340" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWtQI4drn2IVwsIaolCW1Y6gVJusRzxl-RXoYjTHWu2V6wFiVste4zSjvCJdgHBt38AqTBRClzjvyY2N_1SthqCiJl46t7h8j5ZZsHep8df0UE1pIlKP8PeKKenEGzdMvEkEdnWDh1FUj08ba2-DwzBCAj2acPZGuwHUBaweAbudWr381EiOhX0Me8SSic/s320/gb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>The one that you will find more true and believable between Genesis and the Big Bang Theory depends upon your philosophical starting assumptions.</p><p>If you start with the atheistic naturalistic materialistic philosophical presuppositions behind the Big Bang which started from a singularity and expanded outward eventually forming stars, galaxies life, and intelligent life that is human beings. If you ignore the fact that all of our research indicates that naturalistic <a href="https://www.timesexaminer.com/charles-creager-jr/11687-abiogenesis-a-thermodynamic-impossibility" target="_blank">abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible</a>, with it requiring many more orders of magnitude more events than there are possible events in the Big Bang model of the universe to have possibly any chance of coming up with a functioning cell. If because of these atheistic naturalistic materialistic philosophical presuppositions, you throw any possibility of an intelligent designer behind life despite the abundance of evidence to consider the Big Bang model to be more believable because there is no other alternative regardless of what the evidence and no laws of physics may actually say.</p><p>If, however, you start with the historically recorded account reported to have been provided for us by the creator himself then you have none of the thermodynamic or other difficulties associated with the Big Bang Theory or developing living systems because you have an intelligent designer to handle them. Furthermore, you are free to include the possibility that we could be in a privileged place in the universe because we were created by the God who created everything around us, this solves a lot of the problems in cosmology that exist because of insisting on the cosmological principle. In this case, you would find the Genesis account to be the more true and believable account of origins.</p><p>What happened in the past, which one we find more believable, is going to depend upon our starting assumptions. If those starting assumptions exclude God before you look at any of the data then it will be impossible for you to find the Genesis account to be true and believable regardless of the evidence.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk121240127">References:<br /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.timesexaminer.com/charles-creager-jr/11687-abiogenesis-a-thermodynamic-impossibility" name="_Hlk121240127" target="_blank">Abiogenesis, a Thermodynamic Impossibility</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.timesexaminer.com/charles-creager-jr/11674-what-are-the-probabilities-of-abiogenesis-occurring" target="_blank">What are the Probabilities of Abiogenesis Occurring?</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk121240127">Help support this blog.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><p><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-8757120532045538932024-02-03T11:45:00.000-05:002024-02-03T11:45:00.027-05:00Science versus scientism<p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC7Di0uzpwo9kuqLWMznoG52nchEDjiXCxg8W12yRiNH5ehQAbHzYJH_ioFirD3y43FB7pEBPQxDAroHBir6BVQaxl-nol3Dd5_V9z2EZExO2xJYGilVln-pyjFb8ZH3KHcMHRIVfjAPKNBoN1qlagHOdJpS0mo4NIM18xVrDPkR9Z2Y_fnzKWsig6_tSY/s1528/scientsimidol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1528" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC7Di0uzpwo9kuqLWMznoG52nchEDjiXCxg8W12yRiNH5ehQAbHzYJH_ioFirD3y43FB7pEBPQxDAroHBir6BVQaxl-nol3Dd5_V9z2EZExO2xJYGilVln-pyjFb8ZH3KHcMHRIVfjAPKNBoN1qlagHOdJpS0mo4NIM18xVrDPkR9Z2Y_fnzKWsig6_tSY/w440-h231/scientsimidol.jpg" width="440" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal">Science and scientism are radically different things despite
the similarity in their names. Science is a methodology for studying the
natural world and how it works. Scientism on the other hand is a philosophical and
metaphysical perspective on science. There are three main ways of defining
scientism. </p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It can be seen as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and methodology.</li><li>It sees science as the only objective way of determining truth.</li><li>It includes the unwarranted application of science to areas that do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.</li></ul><p></p><o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p class="MsoNormal">At its core scientism extends from the philosophy of
absolute naturalism, where God or anything else beyond nature is excluded as
even a possibility for consideration. Despite claims to the contrary by its
adherents, scientism is essentially a religious devotion to science from an
atheistic perspective and its absolute devotion to philosophical naturalism.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is possible to make use of the scientific method while
maintaining God as a viable explanation for observed phenomena. It is also
possible to formulate scientific theories that include God, but yet satisfy
the scientific need for testability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, the inherently atheistic philosophy of scientism
is taught in many schools as the only acceptable philosophy of science. This is
a primary reason why there seems to be a conflict between science and religion.
That is ultimately establishment science leaves no place for God and excludes Him
as even an allowable explanation for anything. This has become a dominant
philosophy in science education such that most people who study science only
get this philosophy and no other philosophy of science.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whether or not they want to call scientism a religion is
irrelevant, the fact is that it is their devotion that is religious in nature
even if they reject the label of religion for scientism itself. One of the
strong indications of the religious nature of scientism is the way its adherent
reacts when you even question certain claims made under the auspices of science. Two
of the long-standing examples are universal common descent evolution and man-caused climate change. Regardless of your reasons for questioning these, a
failure to blindly accept either one will get you labeled as anti-science
and or a science denier no matter how much actual science you present to make
your case. To the adherence of scientism, science is not just the methodology
of science, but specific claims made under its auspices that are simply not
allowed to be questioned. They will also frequently claim that any opposition
that you do make to these claims is based on an erroneous understanding of
those theories. They will make this claim even when they cannot point out any
way in which you are actually wrong.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The claim will often be made that this devotion is towards
science not towards some religion, but it is possible to have a religious
devotion something that is not inherently religious. Sports are a good example
of this. Many sports fans have a religious quality to their devotion to those
sports teams that they are fans of. It needs to be reminded here that the word “fan”
is derived from the word “fanatic”. The point is that while science itself is
not a religion, those whose worldview qualifies as scientism do indeed have a
religious devotion not just to science, but to science under the presupposition
of absolute naturalism. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the main problems with this view of science is that
they see objectivity not as reproducibility but as being
able to view the world from a perspective that does not involve us. This
so-called objectivity also requires absolute naturalism, thereby excluding
God right from the start. This form of objectivity is actually impossible
because we all have preconceptions. Sometimes those preconceptions are
destroyed by evidence if we allow it to be, but those who claim objectivity the
most show it the least in actual practice because they will never consider a
different perspective from the one they already have on reality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk121240127">Help support these articles.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><div><br /></div><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-30971836216768784172024-01-25T16:36:00.003-05:002024-02-03T11:34:16.758-05:00Does the Bible Say that Noah’s Flood was Global?<p> One of the most common compromised positions is to claim that Noah’s Flood was just a local flood. Some try to connect it to events in the Black Sea, while others are ambiguous about it. So, what does the Bible really say about the extent of Noah’s Flood?</p><p>Genesis 7:11-24<br />11, In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12, And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.<br />13, In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;<br />14, They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.<br />15, And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.<br />16, And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.<br />17, And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.<br />18, And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.<br />19, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.<br />20, Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.<br />21, And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:<br />22, All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.<br />23, And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.<br />24, And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.</p><p>If you look closely at these verses, you will see the repeated use of universal terms such as every and all. It does not say all the animals in the area where Noah lived died, there is no qualification. Furthermore, it says that “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered” and that the mountains were covered with 15 cubits (about 22 ft.) of water. There is no way that even local mountains could be covered by 22 feet of water, and it simply refers to a local flood. Everything in this description says that it was a global flood.</p><p>Genesis 8:1-5<br />1, And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;<br />2, The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;<br />3, And the waters returned from off the earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.<br />4, And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.<br />5, And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.</p><p>The duration of the flood, and the fact that the ark landed in a mountainous area point to a global flood. If this had been some local flood even given 40 days worth of rain it would not have taken the better part of a year for the water to drain. Furthermore, the ark would have ended up in the lowlands, it probably would have been washed out to sea to eventually settle on a beach. Nothing in this description implies a local flood, but everything points to a global flood.</p><p>It is clear from reading the relevant passages, the Bible is intending to say that the Genesis Flood was global. In fact, as you read these verses it is clear that God is going out of his way to drive this point home. it is like He is saying, “Hey stupid it was a global flood.” There is really no other legitimate interpretation of what the Bible says. The only reason for claiming otherwise is that you think that atheists know more about the origin and history of the world than God does.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhyKOCXtiPnPETsoOw7Scoe023uaVL1HFnUGLdI4GDc7QNCjYdou8O0mairinLp7ish3LGFhns2Hw8RxGdUG-uefzi4jNNFQRVU6l9hS-F9c7CFjZDsbFGrXyC7MrIF78J1IMfiaHcwOp7fR8YeaPihQDFBsYVBmni0nrNWKIlCqH88YNVSTBZLlbfCKMlq" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="362" data-original-width="768" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhyKOCXtiPnPETsoOw7Scoe023uaVL1HFnUGLdI4GDc7QNCjYdou8O0mairinLp7ish3LGFhns2Hw8RxGdUG-uefzi4jNNFQRVU6l9hS-F9c7CFjZDsbFGrXyC7MrIF78J1IMfiaHcwOp7fR8YeaPihQDFBsYVBmni0nrNWKIlCqH88YNVSTBZLlbfCKMlq=w454-h214" width="454" /></a></div>Many pieces of fossil evidence support this including the fact that 95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates despite being found dry land. This strongly suggests that at one time the continents were completely covered by water exactly what you would expect from a global flood.<p></p><p>References<br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3uhdb7P" target="_blank">The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings</a></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/48JPDrt" target="_blank">Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes sense of dinosaur evidence—including tracks, nests, eggs, and scavenged bones</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/4b39OC2" target="_blank">The Global Flood: A biblical and scientific look at the catastrophe that changed the earth</a></div><p><a href="https://amzn.to/3SxSJbd" target="_blank">After the Flood</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk141175356"></a><a name="_Hlk121240127">Help support these articles.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3SKqHKQ" name="_Hlk153360139" target="_blank">Make purchases on Amazon through this link:</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3unK9Ub" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></div><div><br /></div><a href="https://amzn.to/3HMJe2S" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a><br /><br /><a href="https://amzn.to/3OwC06J" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a><br /><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/42xAfMn" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-65315486451177903532024-01-24T11:11:00.001-05:002024-01-24T11:11:36.441-05:00Creationism versus Naturalism.<p> Contrary to what you may think Creationism is not the
alternative to evolution, but rather it is the alternative to Naturalism. This
confusion has often been used to argue against the scientific nature of
creation science. This distinction is very important to understand the
difference between scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings. This is known as <a href="https://amzn.to/47P1seC" target="_blank">philosophy of science</a>.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When you are trying to understand the regular functioning of
some aspect of the universe in the present, such that it can be tested or
observed, then the differences in these philosophical presuppositions are
insignificant since this is by definition what a natural phenomenon is.
However, when you are looking at a past event that is either reported to be
supernatural or for which there are other reasons for attributing the event to
supernatural agency, then the differences between these two philosophical
presuppositions will be significant. Furthermore, if an event was indeed
supernatural in nature and you try to describe what happened based on absolute naturalism,
you will not get the right answer. The problem with philosophical naturalism is
that it makes it impossible to conclude that an event was supernatural
regardless of the evidence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under philosophical naturalism, only natural processes are
considered to exist. A supernatural agency such as God is excluded from
consideration before any evidence is even looked at. Sadly, now methodological
naturalism has been used as a way of pushing naturalism in practice when doing
scientific research. Whether one’s naturalism is philosophical or just methodological
the result is the same. They exclude God as a possible explanation for anything
regardless of the evidence. This makes it impossible from mainstream science to
see any evidence for the Genesis Flood, that is it is excluded as a possibility
because it is not possible under naturalism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What <a href="https://amzn.to/3S9ZAay" target="_blank">Creationism and Naturalism</a> have in common, from a
scientific perspective is that they are both philosophical starting points for
the development of theories. Naturalism excludes supernatural agency by
definition, while creationism allows for it and considers the possibility of
supernatural explanations when the situation calls for it. Both are philosophical
starting points that are then used to develop theories that can be tested.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To properly understand this discussion, it is important to
realize that creationism is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative
to naturalism. There is a difference. Once you understand that both creationism
and naturalism are philosophical positions rather than scientific, but they are
both used as a starting point for scientific theories then understanding the
difference between the conclusions of creationists and evolutionists becomes a
lot easier.<o:p></o:p></p>
<span><a name='more'></a></span><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack - Answers in Genesis</a></p><a href="https://amzn.to/3XpvSjz" target="_blank">
Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise</a><br />
<br /><div><br /></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-4099557694817532272023-12-08T17:13:00.004-05:002023-12-08T17:13:51.288-05:00Big Bang to Man Evolution Is Atheistic Mythology<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioJo5oiBrxhyDYMAWchpR_u5XAzr0XAh6-bKOlLXET6GFfgMsIHaKykEsv_0Mlz9RwhXGFWrMpVWl7elnKudQwO4oAXHgO9U1_0ydJ2rQgxMmLCWkHRedffgDoaxpcYrVZqcD5GGXAwuv-3T2oCD0LL_s9VwzgGTuG6AEkNisu70guc3bkEXV7go_ZPsOk/s558/176c281c17e4957f8c7e176436d23831.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="345" data-original-width="558" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioJo5oiBrxhyDYMAWchpR_u5XAzr0XAh6-bKOlLXET6GFfgMsIHaKykEsv_0Mlz9RwhXGFWrMpVWl7elnKudQwO4oAXHgO9U1_0ydJ2rQgxMmLCWkHRedffgDoaxpcYrVZqcD5GGXAwuv-3T2oCD0LL_s9VwzgGTuG6AEkNisu70guc3bkEXV7go_ZPsOk/s320/176c281c17e4957f8c7e176436d23831.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p> Atheists often argue that atheism has no mythology, but when you think about it, the Big Bang to Man evolutionary story is really just a story with atheistic roots. They try to claim that it is scientific, but in reality, it is still atheistic.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Inherently Atheistic </h2><p>Big Bang to Man Evolution is atheistic because it leaves God out of the picture. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry, and most of biology, this line of thinking is not trying to understand how things work, but rather how they originated. There is a big difference between the two and its effect on conclusions about whether or not you include God. Much of this story has its origins among atheists who were talking about universal common descent evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born. For example, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was talking about it.</p><p>Napoleon was informed by Marquis De Laplace, who was an atheist, that his explanation of the solar system's beginnings did not require the involvement of God. While it is true that a Catholic priest proposed the concept of the Big Bang, he had already disregarded the Biblical account of creation and embraced atheistic ideas and conclusions. Therefore, the narrative of the Big Bang leading to the existence of mankind was either formulated by atheists or individuals influenced by their ideologies.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">You don't have to be an atheist except these theories</h2>Though one need not be an atheist to accept the Big Bang to human evolution story, some who believe in God and accept this narrative hold contradictory views without acknowledging the inconsistency. Humans often cling to mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously, accepting what we were taught rather than logically analyzing our positions.<br /><h2 style="text-align: center;">The connection goes beyond the concept origins</h2><p class="MsoNormal">The link between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory and atheism extends beyond the origins of these concepts. Fundamentally, this historical model presumes absolute naturalism, excluding God as an explanation without first examining the evidence. As such, it represents an atheistic philosophical view of history. Moreover, it is the sole historical model of Earth's and the universe's evolution consistent with atheistic worldviews.</p><p>This view of history attempts to explain our existence without invoking God. The reaction to creation science and intelligent design clearly demonstrates this naturalistic perspective. These ideas are immediately rejected by institutional science and those adhering unquestioningly to the naturalistic historical view. Online discussions quickly reveal that notions of intelligent involvement in human origins are dismissed out of hand, often treated on par with believing in a flat earth. This dismissal is not merely figurative but frequently quite literal.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Artificially inserting God</h2><p>Yes, you can artificially insert God into this model, but it is just an artificial insertion. This entire model of history is completely naturalistic, there is no place in it for God. Trying to believe both, is literally trying to believe two things there are logically exclusive. While it is possible to imagine God using this theoretical process to create everything, It is not logically consistent to do so. This model of history was designed from its inception for the most part to explain our existence apart from God. To insert him you have to relegate God to an agency that leaves no detectable traces and is nothing but a God of the gaps. This is not the God of the Bible, but one made up so that people can have it both ways.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Conclusion</h2><p>The Big Bang to human evolution narrative is essentially an atheistic myth. This perspective on the origins of the universe and life is rooted in atheism. A close examination of the history and philosophy behind it reveals an inherently atheistic worldview. For atheists, it represents the sole coherent explanation for existence. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, one must accept this account of cosmic and biological origins. At its core, the Big Bang to human evolution story is atheistic mythology.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3gKIDo7" target="_blank">Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? </a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3DaiUg7" target="_blank">Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3FhQxiX" target="_blank">The Myth of Junk DNA</a></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-92041332752993522732023-12-07T15:50:00.002-05:002023-12-08T17:06:00.740-05:00The label of science denier.<p>The act of labeling someone as a science denier is an Ad hominem, which is a personal attack that draws a parallel to Holocaust deniers. These individuals, who sympathized with the Nazis, denied the undeniable truth of the Holocaust despite the abundance of evidence. In essence, by using this label, creationists are being compared to Nazi sympathizers.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Notion Behind this Label </h2><p>The concept behind this label assumes that the individual using it believes a specific theory to be an indisputable scientific fact. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with this theory is simply seen as denying it. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that there can be valid reasons for questioning even well-established scientific principles. One possibility is that the person being labeled has not been properly introduced to the concept. Another valid reason could be a lack of trust in the concept due to the individuals advocating for it, as exemplified by the skepticism surrounding climate change. A third legitimate reason is the identification of potential flaws in the idea. Whether or not these concerns are valid is a separate matter, but it is important to note that calling someone names will not convince them that they are mistaken about something. </p><p>This tendency to resort to name-calling is a common issue among proponents of evolution, indicating their inability to effectively address objections. When they believe they can provide a satisfactory response to an objection, they will do so. However, inevitably, evolutionists will eventually resort to name-calling, with "science denier" being one of the terms used.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Problems with Using this Derogatory Label </h2><p>Using this derogatory label presents a significant issue due to a misunderstanding of creationists. Apart from the comparison to Nazi sympathizers, the label also suggests an irrational motive for rejecting evolutionary theory. However, there are numerous rational grounds for dismissing the concept of universal common descent evolution. The primary reason is the lack of demonstrated evidence for its mechanism's capability. For universal common descent to be plausible, it must possess a means of generating new intricate and specific information. Organisms must somehow acquire the necessary information to develop structures such as hearts, lungs, different blood cell types, wings, and various other complex features found in every living cell. Prior to asserting universal common descent as a viable explanation for life's diversity, it is imperative to demonstrate its feasibility. Without substantial amounts of genuinely new complex information, not duplications or degenerative mutations, but entirely novel information capable of producing previously nonexistent complex structures, this stands as one of several highly logical grounds for rejecting universal common descent evolution.</p><p>Some evolutionists have ceased to view science as a combination of theory and data, instead displaying signs of perceiving themselves as the embodiment of science. This mindset is apparent in the case of Dr. Fauci, renowned for his involvement in COVID-19, who, when questioned about the science, <span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">replied
that he was the science</span>. Even if such a remark was meant to be lighthearted, it nevertheless reveals their perception of their connection to science.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheRRrZkPeqDiovXg16EIVtTLFrccBG9l4O7rFdjdBAKzxjAI8WUgomWhCmQ28XU7WcmrZSnhN5hnS8TPbxsu1_YQclNRAjUTMEfgnCHunv1YNCxkYx6VMg-BjGfKi_c0jZ-1651IKj8N9QKRWHvnUA9SlC5fek8-tEMjs93-_vTCY7QAi-KvzvlNEPFCrD/s237/images.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="213" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheRRrZkPeqDiovXg16EIVtTLFrccBG9l4O7rFdjdBAKzxjAI8WUgomWhCmQ28XU7WcmrZSnhN5hnS8TPbxsu1_YQclNRAjUTMEfgnCHunv1YNCxkYx6VMg-BjGfKi_c0jZ-1651IKj8N9QKRWHvnUA9SlC5fek8-tEMjs93-_vTCY7QAi-KvzvlNEPFCrD/s1600/images.png" width="213" /></a></div><p>Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the same people who are calling creationists and others whom they disagree with, science deniers, regularly deny the obvious scientific fact that we are born male and female based on our genetics and that it is not something that is a matter of how you feel. </p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Conclusion</h2><p>In the end, the utilization of such a derogatory term demonstrates a lack of willingness and even incapacity to handle differing opinions. If proponents of evolution were truly impartial and receptive as they assert, they would refrain from employing such derogatory terms. They would be open to listening to those who hold opposing views and make an effort to comprehend their standpoint. Nevertheless, their response towards both creation science and intelligent design reveals an attitude of superiority that, even if they were correct, would hinder them from gaining any knowledge from their adversaries.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3gKIDo7" target="_blank">Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? </a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3DaiUg7" target="_blank">Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3FhQxiX" target="_blank">The Myth of Junk DNA</a></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-81808779885717008442023-12-06T16:31:00.004-05:002023-12-06T16:31:57.489-05:00The label of pseudoscience.<p>Evolutionists often refer to creation science as pseudoscience. It's a pejorative phrase that's often used for any idea that challenges the largely accepted beliefs of institutionalized science. For the most part, it is an attempt to maintain the status of science inside institutionalized science.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">The term pseudoscience </h2><p>There are two acceptable applications for the term "pseudoscience," which effectively means "fake science." The first is willful deception by those pushing the concept question. This word can also be used to refer to science fiction. To make what is happening in a science fiction story at least sound scientific, one may, for instance, construct some scientific-sounding vocabulary.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not an official term</h2><p>The lack of an authoritative source for this label's application is one of its main issues. That is, the definition and designation of pseudoscience are not determined by a controlling body. As such, there is nowhere to file an appeal over the label. It is just used as a pejorative phrase, and everyone who has a position to which it is applied is forced to defend their position against the label regardless of the facts. The fact that those who use the designation typically dismiss any proof that they are incorrect only serves to exacerbate the situation.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">The application of the label</h2><p>It also ignores the reality that there are many kinds of science and that not all bad science is the same as phony science. There is no proof that someone engaged in false science if they follow the scientific method but get incorrect findings due to a careless technique. Even though their research was subpar, it is nevertheless authentic.</p><p>It is also noteworthy that people who use the term "pseudoscience" struggle to define it precisely, and consistently. They do not apply the label to ideas they embrace, including universal common descent evolution. In actuality, though, this is just a term applied by people who use it to refute a scientific opinion that they find objectionable.</p><h2 style="text-align: center;">The use of such derogatory terms</h2><p>The frequent use of such disparaging language is a callous method of handling people who have different opinions from you. The use of such terminology, frequently, stems from the user's incapacity to adequately explain their stance.</p><p>It is regrettable that such disparaging language appears in scientific discourse. Language like this should never be used in research if it is truly to be understood as an investigation of truth rather than a means of advancing a particular goal. It's interesting to note that the two domains where they appear most frequently are those about origins and "climate change." This is because none of these are genuinely scientific; rather, they are all elitist tools. As a result, they are unable to tolerate rivalry or simply questioning. This is the primary cause of the widespread usage of disparaging language in these areas. </p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Conclusion</h2><p>Ignoring these kinds of disparaging labels as much as you can is the wisest course of action. When necessary, draw attention to the disparaging connotations associated with terms like "pseudoscience" and provide evidence for its fallibility. However, as one of their goals is to divert attention from more important matters while instilling a sense of superiority in the user, it is advisable to ignore them whenever feasible.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3gKIDo7" target="_blank">Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? </a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3DaiUg7" target="_blank">Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3FhQxiX" target="_blank">The Myth of Junk DNA</a></div><p><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-34715981888073141412023-12-05T11:05:00.004-05:002023-12-05T11:05:45.966-05:00The anti-science label<p><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWlCfw7E1WcX9Ul3KrojcWRg0WEv2wqzvIoUfXpuG1JMbDuBslJSWQ9azm8dtr1yVWwbV9Hh5Ngwe1-IlAA8Q7Q0c1EwTEjQF7qCAUqZIWgT9gGYVaypNhV0_MfZYijCAFyH_UJ18rORgYeyABpXJL7cWBKI5tJA1KjNV0Iz5CgM_Obw8VLyUn22GovWGw/s697/u9m63UML0L5pPH571www1U76goXr11H7fWA9eae-hSQ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="697" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWlCfw7E1WcX9Ul3KrojcWRg0WEv2wqzvIoUfXpuG1JMbDuBslJSWQ9azm8dtr1yVWwbV9Hh5Ngwe1-IlAA8Q7Q0c1EwTEjQF7qCAUqZIWgT9gGYVaypNhV0_MfZYijCAFyH_UJ18rORgYeyABpXJL7cWBKI5tJA1KjNV0Iz5CgM_Obw8VLyUn22GovWGw/s320/u9m63UML0L5pPH571www1U76goXr11H7fWA9eae-hSQ.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;">The term “anti-science” is one of several derogatory terms that evolutionists use against creationists. You’ll find some Christians for whom this charge is correct, but it’s not a label that’s accurately associated with creationists. In fact, most active creationists embrace science. The issue that most creationists face is the promotion of atheistic mythology disguised as science.</span></div></div><p></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Definition of Anti-science</span></span></h2><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">The legitimate meaning of anti-science refers to a collection of attitudes that encompass the denial of science and the scientific method. Evolutionists and others commonly define it as the rejection of mainstream scientific perspectives and methodologies or the substitution of unproven or intentionally deceptive theories. These two definitions differ significantly. The first definition pertains to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles, such as the scientific method, on a general level. On the other hand, the second definition targets specific theoretical concepts advocated by established scientific institutions. In essence, the first definition, which is a valid usage of the term, rejects science as a whole, while the second definition is employed to criticize those who dispute particular claims made within the realm of science. The disparity between these definitions is substantial. By the way, in the second definition, I will leave it to your imagination to determine who holds the authority to decide whether a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.</span></span></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Ignored in Usage of Derogatory Terms </span></span></h2><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">The usage of derogatory labels often overlooks the fact that challenging and disagreeing with widely accepted scientific concepts has historically played a crucial role in the advancement of science. Had this mindset prevailed in the early 20th century, groundbreaking theories like Special and General Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics, would have been rejected. Esteemed scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck would have been dismissed as anti-science. Derogatory labels are employed to protect certain ideas that are presented as scientific facts, despite being highly questionable. This tendency is often driven by philosophical and political motivations. For instance, the philosophical connection between universal common descent evolution and atheism, or the leftist origins of the belief in man-caused climate change.</span></span></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Political Nature of Use of Derogatory Terms </span></span></h2><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">The political nature of the use of such derogatory terms is evident by the fact, that people who have opposed mandatory masks, closedowns, and vaccines, because such mandates are an attack on individual liberty are finding this label applied to them whether or not they are questioning the scientific claims involved. Those using these labels are basically saying that you not only have to agree with them in these areas, but you also have to allow them to decree what solutions you must follow.</span></span></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Tyranny of the Experts</span></span></h2><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">A tyranny of the experts is precisely what allowed the Catholic Church to maintain its authority for numerous centuries. The beginning of their decline in power occurred when ordinary individuals gained access to the Bible in their native tongue and could interpret it independently. What exacerbates the severity of the present form of </span></span><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">tyranny of the experts </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">is that one is not deemed an expert unless one aligns with specific perspectives.</span></span></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Personal E</span></span><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">xperience</span></h2><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">When I was in college, I had a hard time understanding both Relativity and quantum mechanics. Part of the problem was that the textbooks presented them as mathematical abstractions in need of a physical explanation. I worked on such an explanation for many years and even developed a good model. I did this because I had time to work on it. However, my model made a prediction which I was able to prove to be wrong. I also discovered a solution to my problems with both theories at the same time. Not only do I understand both theories better today, but you will find that I defend them better than people who blindly accept them. It also led me to find a way to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics which is what I am working on now. This is because of the freedom to investigate. The tyranny of experts doesn’t allow this.</span></span></p><h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Conclusion</span></span></h2><p><span face="Inter, Ubuntu, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;">To put it another way, the use of terms like "anti-science" implies that the point of view of those who use them is the only correct one. They claim that anyone who does not agree with that point of view is an enemy of science. In fact, this is an anti-science stance all on its own, because it denies that scientific thought is contingent.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3gKIDo7" target="_blank">Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? </a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3DaiUg7" target="_blank">Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3FhQxiX" target="_blank">The Myth of Junk DNA</a></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-76329907053228567392023-12-04T15:34:00.006-05:002023-12-04T15:34:55.023-05:00The Use of the Word Science by Evolutionists<p> Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they
will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion.
Meanwhile, some creationists declared that what they are doing is
science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions
such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist needs to
present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly
successful ones. When we do this, they will often start insisting that it
is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate
argument against creationists, when presented with evidence either against
naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does
not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer-reviewed journals of institutionalized science.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Often for evolutionists, it is not about whether or not the
research is done properly, whether it is done with good scientific methodology,
or even how well the researcher follows the scientific method. When you get
into a discussion, unless the data or research has been anointed by the high
priests of scientism, and anointed with the blessing of their peer review, most
evolutionists refuse to recognize it as science. Without this blessing, they do
not want to even hear what you have to say. in the minds of such people once
this blessing is given it magically becomes science, and it must be labeled
pseudoscience without it. While they may not use such terminology, it
illustrates the point, that they hold to peer review by the right people with a
religious fervor particularly when they are admitted atheists.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This bubble of protection in which evolutionists place the
Big Bang to man evolutionary theory is not restricted to protection against
creationists, but anyone who dares present data that contradicts the
evolutionary model. It is a natural result of the viewpoint that has been given
a monopoly in public education. It is by protecting evolutionary theory from
challenges that most students can go through their entire education, including
graduate work, and never encounter any weaknesses in evolutionary theory except
maybe in ridicule. The key to this bubble of protection is not allowing any
opposition to this view of human origins to be considered science. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> It all pretty much
boils down to that to qualify as science by evolutionists, atheists
must accept it, and it has to be approved by the right people. A major part of
this process is the tendency to confuse the operational science of studying how
the universe works in the present, with historical science that tries to
develop a story about the past based on present-day information. The problem
here is that because we cannot directly observe the past and thereby see what
actually happened, assumptions need to be made. Consequently, any story
invented about the past is only as accurate as the assumptions that are behind
it. For example, if you assume only natural processes, but God exists and has
been active in our past in a supernatural manner then you will get this story
entirely wrong. You would be completely incapable of seeing and as the Bible
says be “willingly ignorant” of the true history of the world and the universe.
Sadly, in most cases, the stories about the past invented by evolutionists do
not come with disclaimers making these assumptions clear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The point is that when you hear an evolutionist speak about
science, you have to ask yourself which way he is using science, and whether will he
change how he is using it during the discussion. Realize that while much of
what they say might have a basis in actual science, is largely theoretical
conjecture that assumes the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists will deny such
assumptions, but many of them are not even aware of it themselves. You can use
assumptions without being aware of them, simply because they are parts of other
assumptions you are making or other principles that you already accept.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-66471709857720900972023-12-02T12:53:00.000-05:002023-12-02T12:53:07.827-05:00Science and the Study of the Past<p> How good science is at studying the past is a central point
to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by
evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the
present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same
degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the
universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see
how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying
the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when
interpreting evidence.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we are studying the operating principles of the
universe in the present, we can focus on specific observations and experiments
in the present to see what the results are. However, we cannot actually see the
past. Even when observing a distant object in space we cannot observe what
could be seen before we looked through the telescope. As a result, we cannot
actually test the past, because everything we see we observe in the present. If
more than one theory can produce what we currently see in the universe, you
cannot distinguish between them scientifically, except by eliminating a
possibility by showing that it could not have happened.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What about forensics, you may ask? Yes, forensics is dealing
with the past, but it is also not perfect. It is actually a good example of how
science can go wrong when dealing with the past. In forensics, the forensic
scientist on the case looks at the evidence and tries to construct a theory
about what happened. Sometimes that theory is wrong because there is another
factor for which there is no evidence. In fact, this is one of the reasons why
the longer a case lingers the less likely it is to be solved. That is because
evidence tends to degrade with time. It is also interesting to note, that
forensics is in part about finding intelligent involvement in a past event,
however, evolutionists exclude intelligent involvement as a starting
assumption.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a key problem when trying to study history
scientifically, that is you have to make assumptions about the past. A key
assumption made by institutionalized science is absolute naturalism. This
assumption eliminates the possibility of any intelligent involvement in the
origin and subsequent history of the Earth and the universe. It excludes any
divine involvement and therefore it excludes history as described in the Bible
before any evidence is even looked at. You see the Bible describes two major
supernatural acts of God in Earth’s history, Creation, and the Genesis Flood.
If you try to determine the history of the Earth, based on the assumption that
only natural processes were involved, you have to assume that these two events
never occurred. Consequently, if these events actually did occur as described
in the Bible and you tried dating the earth based on naturalistic
presuppositions, you will inevitably derive an age for the earth that is much
older than it really is. This is because both of these events would have thrown
off the dating methods that are used.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A prime example of this is the age of the Earth.
Institutionalized science commonly gives an age for the earth of 4.5 billion
years. This figure assumes that the earth formed naturalistically by collapsing
out of a cloud of dust and gas, however, few people realize that the paper also
states that if it did not form that way it could be any age younger than
4.5 billion years. By the way, while not specifically stated in the paper 6,000
years is less than 4.5 billion years. This of course is just one of many
examples, but it makes the point quite well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem with trying to scientifically study history is
that we do not have access to the past and so we have to make assumptions.
Consequently, any theory about the history of the earth or the universe or
anything else in it requires making assumptions that can never be tested. As a
result, these theories are only as good as the assumptions behind them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, while it is possible to apply scientific methodology to
past events, it is limited by the fact that we can only observe what exists in
the present. Because we cannot observe past events, we need to rely on the
records and other evidence about the past that we can study in the present. One
of the problems that result from this, is the fact that it is always possible
to add extra hypothetical events to a model to explain away problems with the
original concept. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this because there
are other clues, but it is far too easy for such just-so stories to be invented
to patch a theory about the past. However far too often it is extremely
difficult and even impossible to test these stories. It is a major reason why
science is limited when studying the past.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-75644818958720622182023-12-01T15:07:00.003-05:002023-12-01T15:10:19.741-05:00The Real Nature of Science<p> Science is at the heart of the question of origins and the
age of the earth. Evolutionists like to claim that science shows the universe
evolved from a super dense super-hot state in what is commonly called the Big
Bang and that the Earth collapsed from a cloud of dust and gas about 4.5
billion years ago. They also claim that life formed naturally from lifeless
chemicals and then evolved into all the living things we see today including
man. They further deny any legitimacy of creation science. However, discussing
origins or any other topic scientifically requires knowing what science is.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Science is not a collection of unquestionable facts, but it
is actually a methodology for acquiring knowledge. This methodology is known as
the scientific method. While you can find some variations in the exact wording,
the basic concept is as follows:</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Define the problem.</li><li>Develop a hypothesis that solves the problem.</li><li>Performing an experiment or observation to test the hypothesis.</li><li>If the hypothesis does not fit the experiment or observation repeat #2.</li><li>If the hypothesis is a close fit to the experiment or observation refine the hypothesis and repeat #3.</li><li>If the hypothesis agrees with the experimental observation, then write up the results.</li><li>Report the results of your work.</li></ol><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In many ways, this is a trial-and-error process, and each
step is not always carried out by the same individual. For example, theoretical
work is often tested by others who have the skills and or equipment to do the
actual experiments or observations. A key point to note is that the hypothesis
needs to make one or more testable predictions in order to be able to develop
an experiment or observation that will test it.</p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, what makes something scientific? First of all, there is
nothing in this process that requires a naturalistic hypothesis. The key
requirement is that your hypothesis has to produce at least one testable
prediction the failure of which will show the hypothesis to be false, to
qualify as scientific. There is a tendency within academia and
institutionalized science to add the restriction that a hypothesis needs to be
a totally naturalistic explanation. The justification for this is that you can
explain away anything by throwing it under the label of supernatural, however,
that is only true if that is only as far as you take it. After all the same
argument can be made with the general label of naturalistic. If you are dealing
with a specific supernatural event, that leaves detectable evidence then it is
a testable hypothesis and would still qualify as scientific. The same thing
goes for including intelligent agency, as long as an intelligence leaves
testable evidence behind from its activity, then such a hypothesis can be
considered scientific. In fact, both forensics and archaeology distinguish
intelligent activities from natural phenomena. Any rule excluding either
intelligent or supernatural explanations is an artificial limitation based on
philosophical presuppositions that eliminate the possibility of God as an
explanation before any data is actually looked at. The simple fact is, that as
long as an explanation produces one or more predictions the failure of which
shows the hypothesis to be false, it can be considered scientific regardless of
the nature of that hypothesis. Otherwise, you cannot consider science to be a
true search for knowledge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are those who will reject as science or scientific
evidence anything that has not been through formal peer review. Not only that
but the formal peer review has to be from acceptable publications or else it
still does not count. There are two types of peer review formal and informal.
Formal peer review is a gatekeeping mechanism for publication in scientific
journals. Informal peer review is reporting the results in a book or other
format, that then gets reviewed by others and either accepted or not. There is
nothing wrong with either of these approaches but over-reliance on formal peer
review as a qualification of science is problematic, particularly when limited
to relatively few journals. The point is that the results of scientific
research do not magically become science by being published in the right
scientific journal. However, this is the position that some people seem to
take, and it is particularly common among evolutionists. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At its heart, science is a<a name="_Hlk111647267">
methodology </a>for acquiring knowledge. As good as it is, science is not
perfect. The fact is that science works best when dealing with what is
happening in the present and studying currently active phenomena. This makes it
an excellent process for learning about how the universe functions, but
philosophical presuppositions can get in the way, particularly when the
phenomenon being studied cannot be studied directly. This can be the case with
the extremely small, the extremely large, the extremely distant, and the past.
The simple fact is that the further something is from direct observation, the
harder it is to study it scientifically and the more likely that philosophical
presuppositions can get in the way of finding the truth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-70031757075604996212023-11-30T09:54:00.004-05:002023-11-30T09:54:58.884-05:00The Term Evolution as Used by Evolutionists.<p> Naturally, evolutionists use the word “evolution” a lot, but
the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of
biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary
evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis,
which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life.
Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried
to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though
you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living
cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the
word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause
confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the
first three, to the fourth way they use it.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sometimes evolutionists will simply tell you that evolution
is just changes over time and that organisms do indeed change over time. Now,
this is the strict dictionary definition of the word “evolution” and by this
definition, we all individually evolve over our lifetimes. However, there is
way more to the idea of biological evolution than this. In fact, it is not the
idea of evolution that creationists would disagree with. When evolutionists use
this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common
descent, which is where the real dispute is. Any evolutionist who uses the word
“evolution” in this manner within the context of biological evolution is just
trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are times when evolutionists will tell you that
evolution is just changes in the frequency of gene varieties over time. Now
while this is a legitimate biological usage of the term, most of the time when
the word “evolution” is used particularly in the context of “the theory of
evolution” it is not limited to this simplistic definition. Once again, this is
a usage of the word “evolution” in the context of biology that creationists
would not disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to
skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real
dispute is. Once again, using the word “evolution” this way is just trying to
avoid the real issue, by confusing it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet another approach is to equate evolution and adaptation.
Now adaptation does qualify as evolution under the two earlier definitions.
However, it is not the full extent of what the theory of evolution refers to.
It is true that as organisms of the same kind have diversified into different
environments, they have developed new species, in the sense that they become
isolated breeding populations. Interestingly enough if Charles Darwin had
stopped there it would have been a legitimate scientific work. The problem is
that he speculated not just about the origin of species but on the universal
common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionists will routinely point to
evidence of adaptation such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics
and insects developing resistance to pesticides. However, in both cases, the
resistance is a result of damage being done to the gene producing the
particular enzyme that is being attacked by the antibiotic or pesticide. The
enzyme in question does not work as well as it used to, but the resistant
variety takes over because the nonresistant population is killed off. These
results do not demonstrate the type of change that universal common descent
requires for it to be viable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The final way evolutionists used the word “evolution” is by referring to the theory of evolution, which is specifically dealing with
universal common descent. This is where the real disagreement is, this is also
where actual science is departed from, and atheistic mythology takes over. The
primary evidence put forward for the universal common descent of all life on
Earth is physical and genetic similarities between different kinds of
organisms. It ignores the fact that these similarities can be accounted for by
a common designer. Furthermore, there is no degree of difference even between
humans and chimps that would be considered evidence against common ancestry,
which makes the entire notion unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has never been
demonstrated that natural selection or any other naturalistic process is
capable of producing the new complex specific information that would have to
come about for universal common descent to be correct. For example, fish do not
have lungs but to have evolved into amphibians they would have had to develop
them. Despite a lack of any evidence that this is even possible, universal
common descent is used to interpret biological and fossil data in a manner that
makes it look as if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there
is no actual evidence that it works.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consequently, evolutionists used the word evolution in
different ways to confuse the real issue. When talking with an evolutionist, it
is necessary to ask them what they mean by evolution. Meanwhile, it is
important for creationists to always clarify the word evolution so that they
cannot twist what we are saying. When we refer to universal common descent,
always use the term “universal common descent” or “universal common descent
evolution.” Doing so will force the discussion to remain on the real topic of
concern and not to get off on any of these other side points that result from
evolutionist word games.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-68179105891150699022023-11-29T15:40:00.004-05:002023-11-30T09:57:08.024-05:00Is the Word Evolutionist a Derogatory Term<p> If you have done any online discussion about universal
common descent evolution, you will notice that the proponents of evolution tend
to denounce the term evolutionist. They will often claim that it does not exist even though a simple Google search shows that it is accepted as a
word by multiple dictionaries. They usually go on to claim that it is only used
by creationists as a derogatory term to make evolution sound like it is just a
belief system.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First of all, this claim is not true. Not only is the word
“evolutionist” found in dictionaries as referring to “a person who believes in
the theory of evolution” but it is used simply as a general term for those who
accept the theory of universal common descent evolution, and often the entire
Big Bang to man story. This is because while not identical they are part of the
same overall view of history. So, it is not intended to be derogatory nor imply
anything about the theory itself, it is simply a general descriptive term for
those who accept that particular theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, evolutionists reject this label while also
refusing to supply an objective alternative term that they will accept. This is
mainly because they want to equate their view of history to science,
consequently, many of them reject any term other than scientists. This Is it
inherently biased notion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a result, we have a situation, where we have a word that
is well recognized as referring to the adherences to and promoters of universal
common descent evolution, but they reject it at the same time refusing to
supply an objective alternative. This allows them to complain every time they
are called evolutionists making conversation difficult at even this basic
level. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of evolutionary wordplay.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-85170661275504590532022-08-02T19:11:00.007-04:002023-11-30T09:57:43.726-05:00Why Does the Question of Origins Matter?<p> The nature of our origin is important to who and what we
are. This is because from a Biblical perspective we are special creations of
God. We were created for a purpose. From a purely naturalistic and evolutionary
perspective, we are nothing but cosmic accidents without any purpose
whatsoever. So, the question of origins gets at the heart of who and what we
are. Are we special creatures created for a purpose, or just cosmic accidents?
The difference between these two makes for a big distinction.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Biblical Creation is based on the history of the Bible. That
history includes creation around 6,000 years ago and a global flood around
4,400 years ago. Both of these would have been supernatural acts of God, so any
effort to explain the world around us by purely naturalistic means would result
in age estimates there are many times larger than they really are. This is the
primary problem when it comes to dating what we see on this planet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The fact is that the Big Bang to man evolutionary story is
fundamentally atheistic. The ideas on which it was based have their roots among
18th-century atheists and deists. Modern ideas about universal common descent
evolution, in particular, predate Charles Darwin and was being discussed by
atheists including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. In fact,
Charles Darwin got his ideas about universal common descent from reading his
grandfather’s writings. You do not even have to look that far back to see the
atheistic influence in this story. All you have to do is look at the reaction
to intelligent design, or any suggestion of intelligent involvement in the
process. Proponents of the Big Bang to man evolutionary story like to stress
that there was no planning involved but that everything we see is just a result
of unintelligent totally naturalistic forces. Yes, not everyone involved in
creating it has been an atheist, but an atheistic perspective is abundantly
clear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This may come as a surprise to some people, but creationism
is an alternative to naturalism, not evolution. Both creationism and naturalism
are philosophical starting points for developing theories about the history of
the world and universe. The Big Bang to man story is what you get when you try
to explain the universe by totally naturalistic forces and exclude God from
your reasoning as a starting condition. Biblical creation on the other hand not
only allows for the consideration of God but requires God as an integral part
of it. So, ultimately the question of origins is a question about whether or
not God is taken into account when trying to understand the evidence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are several reasons why all this matters. The first is
the logical fact that whether or not you include God when you try to explain
the world around us has a profound influence on the conclusions that you come
to. Furthermore, where we came from is a critical part of who and what we are.
If we are just cosmetic accidents, then nothing special is lost when you
slaughter millions of unborn babies or even full-grown adults. However, in the
Biblical account of our origin is true then we are created in the image of God,
and we are special indeed and the slaughtering of our fellow human beings is a
crime against God. Finally, Jesus himself spoke of both the creation and the
Genesis flood as real history. So, the very credibility of Jesus Christ is at
stake in this issue. There is no room for compromise, either God created the
world, or the world created itself. Which position you take affects how you see
the world around us in the very evidence you are studying.</p><p class="MsoNormal">For further reading:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3JlVGGJ" target="_blank">Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately Overlook Creation and the Flood by Simon Turpin </a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3PSgZlN" target="_blank"> 4 Volume Answers Book Box Set Paperback by Ken Ham </a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div><br /></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-75417060887080644062021-06-07T13:00:00.004-04:002023-11-30T14:51:00.707-05:00Quantum mechanics and the nature of reality<iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/W4DzjSJxLHs" style="background-image: url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W4DzjSJxLHs/hqdefault.jpg);" width="480"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>There is an interesting video on what quantum mechanics shows about reality and how it fits with Biblical creation.<br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-44585437139146524252021-04-20T10:03:00.002-04:002023-11-30T14:51:34.495-05:00The Information Universe Part 5<div><iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/bTB-bpMpAts" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-54441220840456556262020-10-27T15:34:00.003-04:002023-11-30T14:53:00.796-05:00Dinosaurs and the Bible<iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fje8GDquMGU" width="480"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-22516872610951009252020-10-19T14:45:00.002-04:002023-11-30T14:54:32.240-05:00The information Universe<iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OA9USRaQrks" width="480"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div><br /></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-35236333330548792702020-09-29T19:48:00.003-04:002023-11-30T14:55:35.259-05:00Catastrophic Martian Geology<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8tP54xZuVTw" width="480"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3OqSs7r" target="_blank">The Ultimate Answers Pack</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/3Vk4CRU" target="_blank">Answers for Kids Box Set</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/46jmD7M" target="_blank">The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://amzn.to/49HBDz3" target="_blank">Warrior Press</a></p><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3AkTDi8" target="_blank">Flood by Design</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://amzn.to/3wuQ6g6" target="_blank">The Biblical Basis for Modern Science</a></div><div><br /></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618840955814587329.post-30679740816696731802020-08-08T15:39:00.001-04:002020-08-08T15:39:14.577-04:00History and the Bible<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J-jmE6RqMik" width="480"></iframe>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02331155214592041805noreply@blogger.com0