The Biblical Prediction of Uniformitarian Geology.

 2 Peter 3:3-6
3, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
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.
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:
6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

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.

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.

 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.

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.

Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately OverlookCreation and the Flood by Simon Turpin  

Help support these articles.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

How Can We See Distant Starlight.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

References: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention

Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise Hardcover

Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D.

Help support these articles.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

Dose the Bible Teach Geocentrism?

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Job 38: 14, It is turned as clay to the seal, and they stand as a garment.

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.

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.

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.

 

Help support these articles.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Proverbs 8:27, When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

compass: go around something in a circular course.

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.

Job 26:7, He stretcheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

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.

Job 38: 14, It is turned as clay to the seal, and they stand as a garment.

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.

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.

References: 

A flat earth, and other nonsense

Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?

Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately OverlookCreation and the Flood by Simon Turpin  

Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 GeologicQuestions Paperback by Mike Oard and, John k. Reed 

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

Scientific Elitism

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Help support this blog.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

Which one is more true and believable, 'Genesis' or the 'Big Bang Theory'?

The one that you will find more true and believable between Genesis and the Big Bang Theory depends upon your philosophical starting assumptions.

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 abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible, 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.

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.

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.

Science versus scientism

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. 

• It can be seen as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and methodology.
• It sees science as the only objective way of determining truth.
• It includes the unwarranted application of science to areas that do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Help support these articles.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press