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

Creationism versus Naturalism.

 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 philosophy of science.

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.

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.

What Creationism and Naturalism 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.

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.

Big Bang to Man Evolution Is Atheistic Mythology

 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.

Inherently Atheistic 

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.

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.

You don't have to be an atheist except these theories

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.

The connection goes beyond the concept origins

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.

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.

Artificially inserting God

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.

Conclusion

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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The label of science denier.

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.

Notion Behind this Label 

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. 

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.

Problems with Using this Derogatory Label 

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.

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, replied that he was the science. Even if such a remark was meant to be lighthearted, it nevertheless reveals their perception of their connection to science.

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. 

Conclusion

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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The label of pseudoscience.

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.

The term pseudoscience 

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.

Not an official term

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.

The application of the label

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.

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.

The use of such derogatory terms

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.

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. 

Conclusion

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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The anti-science label

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.

Definition of Anti-science

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.

Ignored in Usage of Derogatory Terms 

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.

Political Nature of Use of Derogatory Terms 

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.

Tyranny of the Experts

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 tyranny of the experts is that one is not deemed an expert unless one aligns with specific perspectives.

Personal Experience

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.

Conclusion

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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

Science and the Study of the Past

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Real Nature of Science

 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.

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:

1. Define the problem.
2. Develop a hypothesis that solves the problem.
3. Performing an experiment or observation to test the hypothesis.
4. If the hypothesis does not fit the experiment or observation repeat #2.
5. If the hypothesis is a close fit to the experiment or observation refine the hypothesis and repeat #3.
6. If the hypothesis agrees with the experimental observation, then write up the results.
7. Report the results of your work.

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.

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.

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.

At its heart, science is a methodology 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.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Creation and Genetics

Creation and Genetics
When you look a recent genetic data is is amazing how well it supports the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve; The Flood; and the dispersion from Babel. Once You strip away the Evolutionary assumptions human DNA patterns are a perfect match to the Biblical account.

Genesis 2:18-20

Genesis 2:18-20

When these events occurred Eve had not yet been created. God creates some additional animals in front of Adam so he could see God do it. God then has Adam name each kind of animal. This naturally raises the question of “Could Adam have named all these animals in one day?”


It has been estimated that Adam would probably have only needed to name some 2,500 kinds of animals. However to allow for some unknown kinds lets make it 3,000 kinds of animals so at one every five seconds Adam could have finished the task in 4 hours and 10 minutes.

Genesis 2:17

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil mentioned is first mentioned in Genesis 2:17. Note that name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and not the the knowledge as some have claimed.

The Expulsion from Eden

Genesis 3:22-24
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Commentary

The fruit of this tree apparently had such healing propertied that it could actually help the body and repair genetic damage of a life time that eventually leads to death.

Ambrosia, the food of the gods in Greek mythology seems to be a result of combining the fruit of the Tree of Life and that of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since Ambrosia is alleged to convey eternal life and god hood to the eater. The Tree of Life is the eternal life part and the Satan possessed serpent told Eve the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would make her as a god.  

The Origin of Clothing

Genesis 3:20-21
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Commentary

This is likely the first place where a death actually occurred because the skins here probably came from one or more animals.

The need to labor

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Commentary
This verse includes the need to labor for food and the fact that after death the body will eventually decay to dust and dirt.

Thorns and thistles

Genesis 3:17-18
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Commentary
This shows that the harmful and defensive features of living things like thorns were added after Man's fall. Thus they were not part of the original creation but add ons resulting from the curse caused by man's fall.  

Pain of child birth

Genesis 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Commentary

Here, is reference and origin of the pain of child birth.

The First Prophesy Crucifixion of Christ

Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Commentary

This is a prophesy that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ’s Death on the Cross. The serpent her was under the influence of Satan and when Christ’s heel way wounded in crucifixion, He dealt Satan a fatal blow.

The Curse on the Serpent

Genesis 3:14

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Commentary

This suggests that snakes originally had legs and lost them as part of the curse related to Man’s fall.  Indeed a fossil snake with small hind legs had been found. The most likely explanation for this fossil is that at the fall God turned off the genes in a snake for making legs and in some cases before the Genesis Flood a mutation turn it back on enough to produce legs in an unless, or reduced function form.



There is also a documented cased of a snake that grew a leg as shown above. This consistent with this verse where snakes still have the gene to make legs but they are normally turned off as part of this curse.

The Fall of Man

Genesis 3:1-13
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Commentary
There is scientific insight here other that the description of this sadly historical event. It should be noted though that the keys to understanding fall are:

1. The desire to be as gods. In many religions man still seeks this. This true even of atheism as it elevates man to supreme position of authority.
2. The desire to know  Evil. In the garden Adam and Eve only knew good, so they were really seeking to know evil. And as one of the consequences of the fall God is letting us know evil.

Marriage

Genesis 2:24-25

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Commentary

This is the Bible's first reference to marriage. Note that God ordained marriage between a man and a woman so the Biblical definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, referring to them as “one flesh.”