Search This Blog

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Hawking is wrong, Philosophy is not dead and neither is God.

One of the basic lessons of journalism is that a news story needs to answer questions.   The most common questions are answered by considering the five W's and the H.   Who, what, when, where, why and how? The opinion of this blogger is that every responsible person must ask these questions about life.   Your worldview is essential to all the important decisions you make in life. Your very life depends upon what you believe.  If you believe in God and have trusted Christ as your Savior, your future with God is so bright you need to wear shades.  Your current knowledge of God will increase dramatically as you enter into the bliss of living with God in a form that can comprehend the supernatural.   I am looking forward to seeing God face to face, as the Bible states.  

If you do not believe in God and do not trust Christ, you are gambling that there is no life after death and you will not suffer an eternal separation from God and the agony of receiving a just sentence for your sins against God and man.  It has been said that there is a God-shaped hole in every human heart.   Only God can fill that space.  Drugs and drinking and sex and money and fame and things can never do the job.  The wisest man on Earth, Solomon, tried abandoning God and seeking happiness in worldly pursuits and possessions.   He had the power and wealth to have anything he wanted, to take any woman, to experience whatever he chose to pursue and discovered that such things of the world are all "vanity" when compared to the things of God. This is the theme of an entire book of the Bible that Solomon wrote, inspired by God , Ecclesiastes.  

It begins with...

"The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity." 

...and ends by asserting that... 


"So this is the end of the matter; all has been heard. Worship God and keep God’s commandments because this is what everyone must do.  God will definitely bring every deed to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or bad." 

The consideration of such things is called "Philosophy."   Let's define our terms by definition:

phi·los·o·phy
noun /fəˈläsəfē/ 
philosophies, plural
  1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline

  2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it
    • - Schopenhauer’s philosophy
  3. The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience
    • - the philosophy of science
  4. A theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior
    • - don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy

It is painful in the extreme to read some of the comments I get on this blog.  Next post I intend to print two or three of the most ludicrous of recent comments, comments that are either remarkably ignorant, downright stupid or intentional lies.  By now longtime readers will know that the comments thread is dominated by mostly anonymous commenters making false claims, asking the same ten or fifteen questions over and over or linking to sites run by ideologues more interested in advancing their worldview than actually inspecting evidence or seeking truth.  Wait until the next post, I promise you that it will be an eye-opener!  

However, the present proclamations of Scientism are hardly better. For instance, if you are an atheist you must account for existence in some way.   The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that nothing is being created or destroyed.   But they also reveal that the Universe is running downhill.  Energy is being converted into entropy.  Everything is going from order to disorder.  Therefore the Universe had a start and it will have an end.  Since every test of Thermodynamics has supported the laws without exception, no real scientist denies them.  But Darwinists try to sneak past them in order to support their ridiculous claims.  Let's make this clear - if there is no force in the natural world that can either create or destroy matter, then a supernatural explanation is necessary.   Furthermore, if the natural world is inexorably moving from order to disorder, how can you believe in a hypothesis that presumes that untold billions upon billions of accidents would all move organisms (not to mention big clouds of dust) from disorder to order?

Now I am going to be straight with my readers, after years of reading the array of Darwinists trying to explain their way out of this conundrum, it has become downright ugly.   Supposedly "brilliant" guys like Stephen Hawking make the ridiculous claim that gravity formed the Universe.  Excuse me, you need a Universe for there to be any such force as gravity so gravity cannot create the Universe.  He also tries to suggest that "M-theory" explains the existence of the Universe.   Has this "theory" been tested and proven?  No.  In fact, it is entirely a theoretical construct.   It is less real than the current Big Bang explanation, in which approximately 96% of the energy and matter do not exist and there is no explanation at all for the singularity at the beginning of said bang.  Now saying that nothing created everything by no means or method, entirely by chance and in opposition to known scientific law (Thermodynamics) is beyond ignorant and goes right to stupid.   You would not make an advance purchase of a product that first has no factory to produce it and second you would only get 4% of the product if it was ever produced, right?  So why would you believe in a Big Bang? 

But Hawking goes beyond stupid and declares (I am not making this up) "Philosophy is dead!"  Proof:

Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’

Physicist Stephen Hawking has told Google's Zeitgeist conference that philosophers have not kept up with science and their art is dead

Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said.


“Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

In a 40-minute speech, Prof Hawking said that the new “M Theory” of the universe was the “unified theory Einstein was hoping to find”. He compared the idea to the computer programme Google Earth, saying it was a “map” of theories, but added that a new, bigger Hadron Collider the size of the Milky Way was needed to collect more data to prove it. 

“This technology is some way off,” he said, “and I don't think even Google could afford to build it.”


Uhm, would anyone care to enlighten Hawking that he is actually sharing his own "philosophy" in the course of asserting that philosophy is dead?  It is about as dumb as writing a book that declares that books are a thing of the past, or driving around in an automobile while declaring that automobiles are defunct!  Is he really that clueless?   Remarkable foolishness must sell because Hawking makes a lot of money writing books that assert things he cannot begin to prove.   But when you share your philosophy with us and that philosophy states that "philosophy is dead" then you are at a new level of dumb.  


Hawking is also depending upon a theory that he declares explains things and yet it cannot even be tested.   It is no credit to the memory of Albert Einstein to be referenced in connection with such unsupported speculations.  Einstein used evidence and worked out his equations with little "fudging" as opposed to Hawking's fairy tales.   Einstein would not consider such a thing "found."  M-Theory has about the same amount of "proof" as does the Easter Bunny.    "This technology is some way off?"   The check is in the mail,  too.  Really, we mean it!   In any event, philosophy is NOT DEAD and as long as men draw breath it will continue to exist.  So that is out of the way.   

 credit

WHAT


Most reasonable people agree that the Universe encompasses all of the natural material existence we can perceive.  We can measure things by three dimensions physically and a fourth dimension would be time, which Einstein was able to show can seem to move at different rates but his calculations also made it certain that man cannot travel back in time nor can he skip ahead...we cannot traverse time.   So we are bound by four dimensions to be held within this Universe and we cannot perceive any other.   So if someone tells you that there are other Universes, again, there is more proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is any evidence at all for another Universe and in fact, by definition, there cannot be more than one:

u·ni·verse  (yn-vûrs)
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics See population.

[Middle English, from Old French univers, from Latin niversum, from neuter of niversus, whole : nus, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots + versus, past participle of vertere, to turn; see wer-2 in Indo-European roots.]

By the way, if some Darwinist tells you that there are infinite Universes and we just happen to live in the one in which all the impossible accidents that are Darwinism and fine-tuning exist, remind them that in an all possible Universes scenario we would have one with a transcendent and all-powerful Creator God, which then cancels out all the other possibilities and puts us right back where we are now.   The only explanation (I am skipping ahead to the end of the movie here) for existence and life and information and the Universe is that God created. 

WHERE 


We are within the Universe. We are on the Earth.  The Earth is very possibly at the center of the Universe (judging by red shifts, among other things), within and near the end of a spiral arm of our galaxy which allows us to observe most of the rest of the Universe but still not right on the edge so we are protected from the dangers of being out in the middle of space.   We are revolving around our Sun, a rare form of star, and are shielded from the most dangerous rays of our own Sun by our magnetic field and atmosphere and from most random objects by several large planets that orbit farther out from the Sun and provide gravity wells and numerous moons that will stop the vast majority of large objects from without our Solar System from getting close to Earth.   Not only are all the laws of physics absolutely perfect for the existence of life on Earth, we are in the optimal position within the Solar System and by distance from the Sun and with the perfect Moon that is perfectly placed to not only provide a system of keeping track of time but especially to provide tides which work to both cleanse and enliven the oceans.   In fact the precision of the fine-tuning of scientific laws and our place within the Universe and galaxy and Solar System is simply stunning.   I have only mentioned a very few examples.


WHEN


This is a subject of much dissension in the scientific community.   Long-agers believe that the Universe is around 13.5 Billion years old (this time frame keeps changing, by the way).  They point to the distance in light years from us to other objects observed in space and conclude that the Universe is quite ancient.   On the other hand, when they try to do the math for a Big Bang which would have produced a Universe (so explosions BUILD THINGS instead of blowing them to pieces?) they cannot come close to an explanation.   Every square peg is faced with a round hole.   The background radiation is wrong.   The total energy and entropy we can detect is very wrong.  The shape of the Universe is wrong.   The movement of the individual celestial objects is wrong.   Other than the problem of a bi-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ig Universe that would seem to therefore be old, creation fits the evidence far better.


Additionally, all the planets of the Solar System appear to be quite young.   There is no Darwinist explanation for the formation of any of them that accounts for their characteristics.  Gas giants should not be able to exist, there are planets with magnetic fields that should not be there, planets that are still producing more heat than they receive from the Sun, moons that have active volcanoes and many other anomalies.  The Sun could not have been our Sun for untold millions of years for life would not have been possible on Earth (read about the Young Faint Sun Paradox).    Also, we can prove that the Moon is quite young.


Bible-believers adhere to the assertion of God that He made the Universe about 7,000 years ago.   In fact the Genesis account does indicate that waters were the first materials of the Universe, that light was created before the celestial objects themselves and that God stretched or is stretching the Universe.   Since the Genesis account is a description given to mankind about the creation of everything, it is reasonable to accept the idea that the concept of light being made before the sources of light could mean that, from the point of reference (Earth), the objects made by God were not perceived until after they were made because God made them far enough from us to keep us from harm and then stretched space so that they are now millions of light years away.   It is also possible that God made the light itself and then the sources that would continue emitting the light and THEN stretched space.   Certainly the evidence we can detect tells us that space appears to have been stretched out and perhaps may still be being stretched.   Carmelian Theory integrates the evidence revealed by science with the evidence related to us from the Bible.

Funny how the population of mankind fits the sigmoidal graph that typifies population growth if there was a worldwide flood that ended about 4300 years ago with only Noah's family available to repopulate the Earth.  Naturally the Darwinists begin to dispute the basics of population science when it does not fit their pet worldview.   In fact I often make posts about dating methods and you can research posts on radiohalo dating and the helium-in-zircons problem and I promise you two things - I will present scientific evidence and commenters will give very bad explanations or ludicrous links in response.   Do you really think that granitic zircons still contain helium because such rocks were subjected to temperatures at the dry ice level for most of Earth's history?   That is the kind of "answer" Darwinists will give you.  I hate to get into the Acambaro Figurines right now but Darwinists have no answer to this problem and can only resort to lies or the assertions of a proven con man named DiPeso.  


In any event a creation event around 7,000 years ago makes more sense the more you know about all the evidence available and not just what the Darwinist propagandists tell you.


WHY


Darwinists really cannot touch this question.   They have no why at all.  There is no why for them, for there is no reason or purpose to naturalistic materialism and in fact absolutely no basis for believing that we make choices or that we are even here or can depend on what our brains seem to tell us.   To quote Dr. Will Provine:


"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

So if we have no free will neither can we depend upon what we seem to think because we think that we make decisions and exert that will.  This means that not any theory, any proof, any law and in fact no assertion at all can be supported by a Darwinist because he has no foundation for his beliefs or statements.   If we evolved by chance and with no purpose, then the driver to make us what we are is entirely based on survivability and nothing else.   How can we know the random firings of our brains are producing coherent thought that means anything?   How do we know that we even exist?   Perhaps your assumption that you are real, have thoughts and a body are simply a temporary hallucination randomly produced that will end within a few seconds and there will be no one to know or care about it.

Dr. Provine simply takes Darwinism to the logical conclusion that, if you remove God, you remove life after death, you take away any foundation for ethics at all or any possibility that there is a "WHY?"   If you are a Darwinist, there is no why.   There is also no right or wrong.   There is no foundation for any belief system that can be logically defended.   How ironic is it that one of the only truthful Darwinists would actually tell the truth about Darwinism when he himself saw no reason to be concerned about honesty?

This is why it was believers in God who were the progenitors of modern science.   Men who believed that a Logical God has made everything therefore believed one could discover logical laws by which things behave, logical and repeatable experiments could reveal scientific laws that could be built upon to establish more laws, make more observations and thus advance human learning and accomplishments.

God tells us He created us out of love and to have fellowship with us, to share the joy and glory of eternal life in fellowship with Him, so that we can appreciate Him and live forever with Him.   Darwinists have no why, they cannot begin to tell you why or defend any purpose for existence other than to please themselves, very often at the expense of others.  They will glibly say, "why not?" They will find out from God Himself!  The Walking Dead is not only a campy zombie series, it is an apt description of the typical Darwinist, doomed to experience eternal death but temporarily walking - for now.


WHO

The God of the Bible asserts that He made all things, He tells us the basic order of creation in Genesis 1 on up to 2:3 and then with 2:4 He relates the human-specific information He wanted us to know about the first couple.  For those who are not Bible scholars, the chapter and verse we use to navigate the Bible were added by translators to make the Bible easier for us to locate and remember the exact location of certain texts but are not part of the original books.   If I was in charge of assigning chapters then chapter two would begin with the fourth verse, since there is a shift in point of view and purpose.   Those who deny the veracity of the Bible make the mistake of claiming the first two chapters of Genesis are two different versions of the same story.   No, they are quite different in purpose, since the first is the order of creation and the second is a description of the Garden of Eden and specific information about Adam and Eve.

God's description of the order of creation and His later assertions about the planet Earth, about the stretching of the heavens and that planets are hung upon nothing are nicely laid out in this article:

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?

The Bible is the history book of the universe. It tells us how the universe began and how it came to be the way it is today.

The Bible is much more than just a history book, however; it was written by inspiration of God. The Lord certainly understands how this universe works; after all, He made it. So His Word, the Bible, gives us the foundation for understanding the universe.

It has been said that the Bible is not a science textbook. This is true, of course, and it’s actually a good thing. After all, our science textbooks are based on the ideas of human beings who do not know everything and who often make mistakes. That’s why science textbooks change from time to time, as people discover new evidence and realize that they were wrong about certain things.

The Bible, though, never changes because it never needs to. God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right. When the Bible talks about geology, it’s correct. When Scripture addresses biology or anthropology, it’s also right.

What does the Bible teach about astronomy? Let’s take a look at some of the things the Bible has to say about the universe. We will see that the Bible is absolutely correct when it deals with astronomy.

The Earth Is Round 

 

The Earth The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the “circle of the earth.” From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.

Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.

The Earth Floats in Space 

 

  • The Hindus believe the earth to be supported on the backs of four elephants, which stand on the shell of a gigantic tortoise floating on the surface of the world’s waters.
  • The earth of the Vedic priests was set on 12 solid pillars; its upper side was its only habitable side.
  • The Altaic people of Northern Siberia affirm that their mighty Ulgen created the earth on the waters and placed under it three great fish to support it.
  • The Tartars and many of the other tribes of Eurasia believe the earth to be supported by a great bull.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.

The Expansion of the Universe 

 

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.

Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.

I wonder if any Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.

Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.

You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.

It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

The Age of the Universe 

 

Scripture also addresses the age of the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six days (Exodus 20:11). We know from the genealogies and other events recorded in Scripture that this creation happened about 6,000 years ago.

Yet, this is quite different from what most schools teach. Most secular scientists believe that the universe is many billions of years old, and they usually hold to the bigbang theory. The big bang is a secular speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible’s teaching. The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God (see the next chapter, “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?”).

People who believe in the big bang usually interpret the evidence according to their already-existing belief in the big bang. In other words, they just assume that the big bang is true; they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs. Of course, the Bible can also be used to interpret the evidence. And since the Bible records the true history of the universe, we see that it makes a lot more sense of the evidence than the big bang does.
Now let’s look at some facts about the universe regarding its age. We will see that the evidence is consistent with 6,000 years but doesn’t make sense if we hold to the big bang.

Of course, big bang supporters can always reinterpret the evidence by adding extra assumptions. So the following facts are not intended to “prove” that the Bible is right about the age of the universe. The Bible is right in all matters because it is the Word of God. However, when we understand the scientific evidence, we will find that it agrees with what the Bible teaches. The evidence is certainly consistent with a young universe.

Recession of the Moon


The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. As the moon orbits the earth, its gravity pulls on the earth’s oceans, which causes tides. The tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, causing the moon to gradually spiral outward. So the moon moves about an inch and a half away from the earth every year. That means that the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past.
Recession of the Moon

For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.


Magnetic Fields of the Planets 

 

Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth’s magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.

Spiral Galaxies 

 

A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.

Spiral Galaxy
NASA/ESA

 

Comets 

 

Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible’s history.

Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can’t last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they’ve invented the idea of an “Oort cloud.” This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a “new” comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there’s no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.

Supernatural Creation 

 

Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God’s creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered “extrasolar” planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational “tug” they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good “operational science,” the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.

These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it’s not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.

Conclusion 

 

We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn’t be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.

In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.1
 
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

 

  1. See www.AnswersInGenesis.org/curse. Back

HOW

Here is where even the most ardent students of the Bible are unable to speak with authority beyond repeating the words of God.   This is a place atheism cannot go anyway.    Science tells us that the natural world cannot create itself, so Darwinists cannot even get to the how part because science says they don't get started.   We cannot understand the power of God because God is supernatural and transcends the temporal material existence that contains us and hems us in.   God spoke the worlds into existence.  When we read Genesis we see time and time again "And God said" so we understand that God can create with His Word.   God's Word has guided Christians for many centuries, being the inspiration for great scientists like Newton and great writers like C.S. Lewis and great leaders like Ronald Reagan. 

How is beyond the understanding of man.   God is not material nor natural, he is not imprisoned by time or physical dimensions.   In fact He invented all of these things, powers, concepts...as we are the created, we cannot hope to wrap our finite minds all the way around the supernatural and superior Creator.  We can only come to trust in Him by faith.    


John 1

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
 
   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   
 2The same was in the beginning with God.
   
 3All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
   
 4In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
   
 5And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
   
 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
   
 7The same came as a witness to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
   
 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
   
 9That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
   
 10He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
   
 11He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
   
 12But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name,
   
 13who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
   
 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
   
 15John bore witness of Him and cried, saying, "This was He of whom I spoke, `He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'"
   
 16And of His fullness have we all received, and grace for grace.
   
 17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
   
 18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
   
 19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who art thou?"
   
 20And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
   
 21And they asked him, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he said, "I am not." "Art thou that Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
   
 22Then said they unto him, "Who art thou, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What sayest thou of thyself?"
   
 23He said, "I am `the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"' as said the prophet Isaiah."
   
 24And those who were sent were of the Pharisees.
   
 25And they asked him, and said unto him, "Why dost thou baptize then if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, neither that Prophet?"
   
 26John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there standeth One among you whom ye know not.
   
 27He it is who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe's strap I am not worthy to unloose."
   
 28These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
   
 29The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
   
 30This is He of whom I said, `After me cometh a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.'
   
 31And I knew Him not; but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing with water."
   
 32And John bore record, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and It abode upon Him.
   
 33And I knew Him not. But He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, `Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the Same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.'
   
 34And I saw and bore record that this is the Son of God."
   
 35Again the next day John stood with two of his disciples,
   
 36and looking upon Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
   
 37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
   
 38Then Jesus turned and saw them following, and said unto them, "What seek ye?" They said unto Him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, "Master"), "where dwellest Thou?"
   
 39He said unto them, "Come and see." They came and saw where He dwelt and stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
   
 40One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
   
 41He first found his own brother Simon and said unto him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is, being interpreted, "the Christ").
   
 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah. Thou shalt be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, "a stone").
   
 43The day following, Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and found Philip and said unto him, "Follow Me."
   
 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
   
 45Philip found Nathanael and said unto him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
   
 46And Nathanael said unto him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said unto him, "Come and see."
   
 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
   
 48Nathanael said unto Him, "How knowest Thou me?" Jesus answered and said unto him, "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee."
   
 49Nathanael answered and said unto Him, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel."
   
 50Jesus answered and said unto him, "Because I said unto thee, `I saw thee under the fig tree,' believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these."
   
 51And He said unto him, "Verily, verily I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uhm, would anyone care to enlighten Hawking that he is actually sharing his own "philosophy" in the course of asserting that philosophy is dead? It is about as dumb as writing a book that declares that books are a thing of the past, or driving around in an automobile while declaring that automobiles are defunct! Is he really that clueless? Remarkable foolishness must sell because Hawking makes a lot of money writing books that assert things he cannot begin to prove. But when you share your philosophy with us and that philosophy states that "philosophy is dead" then you are at a new level of dumb.

What, it didn't occur to you that there's a difference between "philosophy" and "a philosophy"?

Jon Woolf said...

Wow, an entire herd of galloping gishes!

[sigh]

So many fallacies, so little time... Why don't we just take a couple of representative ones?

The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that nothing is being created or destroyed. But they also reveal that the Universe is running downhill. Energy is being converted into entropy.

As usual you demonstrate your lack of understanding of thermodynamics. First, even Flanders & Swann knew thermo better than you do, Radar. The First Law says energy cannot be created or destroyed. But matter can be, and routinely is. Second, energy is not 'converted' into entropy. Entropy is a measure of how much energy is available to do useful work. If System A is separated into hot and cold sections while System B is in thermodynamic equilibrium, then the two systems have very different amounts of entropy even if they have the same amount of energy.

Jon Woolf said...

Scanning down, I see you repeat the fallacy of referring to Isaiah 40:22. Let's quote that whole verse so we know what we're talking about:

qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum (Latin Vulgate text)

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 (King James Bible text)

The Second Isaiah, who wrote this verse along with all of Chapters 40 to 55, was raised in Babylon during the Babylonian captivity. He learned his view of the Earth and the Universe from the Babylonians -- who believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a solid metal dome. Note that the text of Isaiah 40:22 is entirely consistent with such an interpretation ... but the use of the word "circle" when Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English all have different, perfectly serviceable words for "sphere," shows that the Second Isaiah meant a flat disc-shaped Earth, not a spherical one.

Here is where even the most ardent students of the Bible are unable to speak with authority

A sad but inevitable consequence of depending on Bronze Age fireside stories, instead of the tools of modern science.

AmericanVet said...

Woolf = ignorance is bliss. The Vulgate is a Latin translation of the original text and the KJV is a textus receptus-based translation that is certainly pretty good but certainly not in the original language. You are depending on translations. The Hebrew word means a roundness which can apply to a flat disc or a ball or a cylinder for that matter. You are simply lying about the Hebrew to try to make a point that is actually a deception.

Hebrew text is חוּג chûg which means "circle, sphere or arch" and is as specific as Hebrew gets concering a sphere, although a word you might anglicize as "dur" could have been used although I beieve that word is a more general roundness as in "round about." So "chug" as you might pronounce it is correct.

To use the English Revised Version:

"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:"

To God we are as grasshoppers, both small and temporary. The verse also suggests God has stretched or is stretching the Universe. Modern science has only discovered this in the 20th Century and, when this verse was written, there were large numbers of people who thought the Earth was flat and either square or more likely round. But once long-distance sailing was established that was not believed by either most sailors or scientists. Watching a boat sink away on the horizon convinced people that we live on a globe.

AmericanVet said...

More Bible that shows God knew things a common man would not back in the days of the writing:

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

Psalm 104:2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent.

Isaiah 42:5 This is what God the LORD says--he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:

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

We do know now that the Earth and other planets seem to hang upon "nothing" or in other words are not on the back of a giant turtle or other such nonsense. God knew more than the scientists of that day and knows more now. While Darwinists scuffle to figure out how space could be expanded or expanding, God says He did it. He demonstrated a complete understanding of any scientific subject upon which He spoke, which was not often, as His concern was to bring man to Him, not teach a Physics class.

But if God was teaching a class, Woolf would get an "F."

You need to review Thermodynamics, too. Matter is NOT destroyed, duh! In the process of energy to entropy matter is changed but not destroyed. Really that is a terribly bad grasp of science you have there. Not as bad as your clumsy attempt to translate scripture.

Thermodynamics and Biogenesis stand as laws that have never been broken. Darwinism is a bunch of fairy tales that break both laws. It is terribly foolish to ignore these two laws and put your faith in people like Hawking and Dawkins who are simply fallible humans with a broken worldview.

Jon Woolf said...

Wow.

Radar, all joking and snideness aside, you've really got to get over this knee-jerk reaction that "whatever Woolf says is automatically wrong."

Yes, matter can be created and destroyed. See: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, matter-antimatter annihilation. These processes all produce energy by destroying matter.

Thermodynamics and Biogenesis stand as laws that have never been broken.

There is no 'law of biogenesis' to break, so that one is moot. The laws of thermodynamics have never been broken that we know of. But then, evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics.

Regarding Isaiah: the problem you have is that all the passages you cite are just as consistent with a flat Earth as with a spherical one, if not more so. That's not just my opinion -- there are numerous websites and written references that say the same thing. To prove your case, you have to show a passage that can only be interpreted as meaning a spherical Earth -- and there's no such passage in the Bible.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Thermodynamics and Biogenesis stand as laws that have never been broken."

1. They are not dictated laws, but observed natural laws. They are valid until they are no longer valid, i.e. until something is observed that doesn't line up with them.

2. Having said that, the theory of evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, and abiogenesis by natural means, as it is currently studied, doesn't violate the law of biogenesis.

As long as you're trying to sell such elementary blunders, you have no business telling Jon Woolf - who has actually composed a blog of scientific essays using his own words instead of copying propaganda from elsewhere - of having a poor grasp of science.

AmericanVet said...

"Wow.

Radar, all joking and snideness aside, you've really got to get over this knee-jerk reaction that "whatever Woolf says is automatically wrong."

Yes, matter can be created and destroyed. See: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, matter-antimatter annihilation. These processes all produce energy by destroying matter.

Thermodynamics and Biogenesis stand as laws that have never been broken.

There is no 'law of biogenesis' to break, so that one is moot. The laws of thermodynamics have never been broken that we know of. But then, evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics.

Regarding Isaiah: the problem you have is that all the passages you cite are just as consistent with a flat Earth as with a spherical one, if not more so. That's not just my opinion -- there are numerous websites and written references that say the same thing. To prove your case, you have to show a passage that can only be interpreted as meaning a spherical Earth -- and there's no such passage in the Bible."


Wow, indeed!

Point one - No, matter is not destroyed, it is converted into other forms. Really you need to learn the basics of Thermodynamics. Nothing can be created or destroyed. When nuclear fission changes the form of the atoms, there is energy release and the matter is changed but it is not destroyed it is simply changed. Thermodynamics 101 refresher course for you, I guess.

Point two - The Law of Biogenesis was accepted by the old way real science used to work before the Darwinists took over. Hypothesis led to testing led to repeated testing by scientists all over the world until all were convinced that no life of any kind, including microbial, could come from non-life. Science established the Law of Biogenesis. It has never been broken or disprove and if you are throwing it away then at least admit you are doing so because of your religion. Science has not overthrown it.

Point three - Whether Isaiah or Job or other Bible passages are used, the language is originally in Hebrew in the Old Testament and we have to translate from that. I provided the Hebrew word which means a roundness and that word is the closest to spherical that can be found in Hebrew.

I can speak a smattering of French and Russian and took college courses in the Biblical languages, concentrating on Greek (Koine) but also touching on Hebrew. I have an expensive translation software package on another computer I use to help me read and translate from Hebrew and Greek. People who know languages know that both sentence construction and verbiage do not sync up neatly from language to language. Russian uses a cyrillic script so I cannot use my typewriter to type a Russian word. Try Chinese or Korean or Aramaic and, on your keyboard, you cannot do it. You need a program that will convert your English language thoughts to the other language and you would be surprised at how this might work.

Russians would not say that "It is snowing" but rather would say "It is raining snow." So does that mean that Russians do not recognize snow? No, but rather it means they just phrase things differently.

I can type "chug" and that is really not Hebrew but it is a word that means a roundness. There is no OT Hebrew word that specifically translates only to ball or sphere. But the Bible does state that the Earth is a round thing apparently hung upon nothing within outer space and that the Universe is stretched or being stretched and all of these things are now known to be true. Mankind did not know this in 700 BC but God did. You can equivocate all you want and no doubt find lots of Darwinist websites that want to claim that the Earth is flat according to God and that all amounts to bupkis. The fact is by best rendering of the Hebrew in Job and Isaiah and Genesis and Psalms we see God asserting scientific fact that we now know to be true.

AmericanVet said...

"Thermodynamics and Biogenesis stand as laws that have never been broken."

1. They are not dictated laws, but observed natural laws. They are valid until they are no longer valid, i.e. until something is observed that doesn't line up with them.

2. Having said that, the theory of evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, and abiogenesis by natural means, as it is currently studied, doesn't violate the law of biogenesis.

As long as you're trying to sell such elementary blunders, you have no business telling Jon Woolf - who has actually composed a blog of scientific essays using his own words instead of copying propaganda from elsewhere - of having a poor grasp of science."


I am not the one who thinks matter can be destroyed, that is Jon.

Both of you deny the Law of Biogenesis. You have no scientific reason to do so. While you are busy working on that abiogenesis thing, might as well keep an eye out for the Philosopher's Stone, too. Same likelihood of discovery.

Of course Darwinism violates the LOT. It goes directly opposite the LOT. Only an idiot would come across a new Mustang and think it evolved from a pile of junk that evolved from a pile of rocks but that is what Darwinism claims about organisms. It is Jon who makes the elementary blunders about the LOT. I don't care if he has a cool website or not, more power to him. He is good at sounding science-y so maybe you are impressed.

But Darwinists have to believe the Universe came from nothing by no means and somehow that nothing exploded into everything. They have to believe a bunch of hot gas organized itself into stars and planets and so on although when they try to come up with a scenario in which this happens they always fail. So when Darwinists look at the Universe they are continually proposing miracles but they subtract God.

God can produce miracles. But Darwinists deny God. Yet the very existence of the Universe requires a miraculous occurrence so you either admit God did it or you wind up saying nothing did it. Really?

Same with life. Same with information. Like I promised, my next post is going to highlight a couple of commmenters to illustrate the ignorance and magical thinking of Darwinism.

I can really sum up Darwinists thus: They have replaced God with nothing and give the credit due to God for making everything and life and information and all those complex and logical laws and systems with nothing. Thus, Chance replaces God. However, statistical laws give Darwinism a big fat zero. Chance cannot be the hero because it is a statistical impossibility. Thus Darwinists are left with Nothing.

You worship Nothing. I worship God. Which one makes more sense?

highboy said...

Wow no matter how many times this "the passage teaches a flat earth" argument is debunked it still doesn't stop people not even remotely educated in ancient Hebrew literature from regurgitating it over and over again.

"There is no OT Hebrew word that specifically translates only to ball or sphere."

Bingo. It doesn't even remotely imply a flat anything, only the round. Its like because the Bible doesn't specifically say "hey, the earth is a round sphere, and its not flat" that it has to mean the earth is flat.

Jon Woolf said...

No, matter is not destroyed, it is converted into other forms.

No, mass is actually lost in those reactions -- lost, destroyed, converted to energy according to Einstein's famous equation. If you add up the mass of a U235 atom and the collective masses of the fission-product atoms, they don't match perfectly. The mismatch is because some mass got converted to energy.

This is much more obvious when dealing with matter-antimatter annihilation. Take a particle and its anti-particle, bring them together, and wham! All the mass of both particles gets converted to energy.

I provided the Hebrew word which means a roundness and that word is the closest to spherical that can be found in Hebrew.

Er, no.

'The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball."' -- from the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies.

Jon Woolf said...

Of course Darwinism violates the LOT.

How? Evolution certainly doesn;t violate the First Law of thermodynamics, because it doesn't create or destroy energy. It doesn't violate the Third Law because it has nothing to do with absolute zero. That leaves only the Second Law, which concerns the inevitable rise of entropy. How does the evolutionary process violate this?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Bingo. It doesn't even remotely imply a flat anything, only the round. Its like because the Bible doesn't specifically say "hey, the earth is a round sphere, and its not flat" that it has to mean the earth is flat."

I think it's fair to say, and I think you'll agree, that the quote doesn't support a claim that the Bible says the Earth is definitely a sphere and not a circle. The interpretation suits both a sphere and a circle, insofar it's perfectly consistent with people believing the Earth is flat. Note: "consistent with", not evidence that people did believe the Earth is flat.

What the argument lacks is what Radar wishes it were: evidence that the Bible says something other than what the people of the time thought was true, i.e. the people thought the Earth was flat, but God knew better and presented this knowledge in the Bible.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"How does the evolutionary process violate this?"

Another question Radar's never been able to answer. He'll huff and puff and claim that he answered it here or there, but somehow can't find the link or whatever.

Reproduction doesn't violate the second LOT.

Reproduction with variation doesn't violate the second LOT.

A phenotype with an inherited characteristic that is less suited to survival or reproduction surviving or reproducing at a lower rate doesn't violate the second LOT.

So what's the problem exactly?