As noted in part 1 of this article, distant starlight has been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young earth. A serious charge. So I thought it would be helpful to identify the best answer to this “best” charge against creation. A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by scientists who happen to also be creationists. We briefly examined the popular ones in the previous article. Now that we’ve completed an overview of possible solutions, we’ll get to the meat of the matter: identifying which theory or theories both have a possibility of working, and surviving the principle of Occam’s razor. So without further ado: Continue Reading
Distant starlight: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe. Why is that? Because Big Bang Theorists, secularists and anyone who believes in an ancient universe believe they have an iron clad case against a young universe with regard to distant starlight. The argument goes like this.
We can see stars hundreds of thousands, millions even billions of light years away. Take the Andromeda galaxy – 2.5 million light years away. A supernova was observed in that galaxy. That implies the light took 2.5 million years to get to earth. But if the earth (and indeed the entire universe) is only 6,000 years old. How can we see Andromeda or the supernova? Using standard understandings and formulas, there hasn’t been enough time for the light to get here from Andromeda. Yet we can see it. On the face of it that suggests that the earth is at least 2.5 million years old – much older than the 6,000 years that Biblical creationists claim for the universe. And the problem only gets worse for more distant stars. This is indeed an acknowledged problem. Continue Reading
Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,
“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable – at least it can’t be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the “science” of evolution. Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 – Darwin’s birthday – as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a “fact” due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.
Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists” that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a “listicle” featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called “Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day.” It’s in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day. Continue Reading
I enjoy looking for evidences of the Creator imprinted on his creation when I travel. This past summer we had the opportunity of visiting San Francisco where we saw the awe inspiring Golden Gate bridge and I snapped the above picture. I was also reminded of the Creator – in an indirect way. Obviously God didn’t directly build the bridge – but the bridge is a reminder of the design inherent in His creation. Let me explain. It is abundantly evident that the Golden Gate bridge is intelligently designed. But beyond that, not only is it intelligently designed, it’s clear it is also irreducibly complex. And irreducible complexity is an undeniable evidence of intelligent design..
Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box, and defined it this way: Continue Reading
In response to my previous article “What Might Einstein Think About Flat Earth Theories” (posted on the Creation Club site)
|The flat earth society is the source for the absurd idea that the earth is “pancake shaped” and it is “accelerating upward” in order to replace gravity. The Biblical Three Tier Cosmology model makes no such claim. I am still looking for Biblical young earth creation ministries to honestly address the Biblical flat earth model. I keep finding articles like this that misrepresent the majority on other side.
The Bible teaches us that the earth is not in any motion and is at rest on a foundation with pillars and a cornerstone. All experiments designed to demonstrate earth’s motion have failed.
The Copernicus/Pythagoras model IS the Big Bang/Evolution model promoted by young earth creationists. It has no Biblical support whatsoever
You seem to value Einstein as a scientist even though this is his real resume:
The response I wrote (below) is a bit long for a comment, so I present it here instead. Also for the reader’s reference – depicted above – the Three Tier Cosmology model Dean refers to consisting of Heavens, Earth and Seas. Note that : Continue Reading
I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt – science writer and co-author of “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design” which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book “Heretic.”
The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses: Continue Reading
Many physicists have begun to cloak themselves in what they hope is the protective garment of the theory of the multiverse to protect them from the deluge of evidence that the universe is finely tuned. As I point out in my previous article, that the universe is finely tuned is not a question:
“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” [physicist Andrei] Linde says.
Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. …
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.
I am I, Don Quixote!
The Lord of La Mancha, my destiny calls and I go.
And the wild winds of fortune shall carry me onward oh withersoever
they blow. Withersoever they blow.
Onward to glory I go!
So sings the title character of the hit movie and play Man of La Mancha based on the book Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. Don Quixote is the name adopted by Alonso Quixano a likeable, less-than-affluent, well read fellow, well past his prime who lives with his niece in the Spanish village of La Mancha. He reaches a point where all his days “from dawn to dark ” are spent reading his favored books: those of the tales of chivalry and the deeds of errant knights from days long ago. However being past his prime, and “with little sleep and much reading his brains got so dry that he lost his wits.”. He was so immersed in the tales that with his waning faculties, he lost the ability to distinguish between what was fact and what was fiction. To the point where he believed that “the whole fabric of invention and fancy he read of was true…”
And thus Quixano decides to adopt the distinguished name of Don Quixote de La Mancha, become an errant knight and go off in search of adventures to right wrongs and fight injustice. Perhaps the most memorable of which is when he comes upon some windmills which he imagines to be giants, and begins jousting with them from his aging and arthritic horse. It’s from this scene we get the phrase “tilting [or jousting] at windmills” which originally meant to fight against imaginary or unimportant enemies or issues. But as a Yahoo aficionado points out, figuratively it has come to mean “a futile activity.”
Which brings us to the current state of affairs in cosmology. Many cosmologists these days are like Don Quixote – jousting at imagined problems that are a result of their imagined theories in order to obtain great glory. Continue Reading
On January 19, 2006 the “fastest spacecraft ever launched” – the New Horizons space probe – lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida on a mission to Pluto. In February of 2007 it collected data from Jupiter as it flew by for a gravity assist catapult as it continued on to Pluto. On July 14th, 2015, New Horizons made its closest approach to Pluto. Scientists have now had an opportunity to review the initial data and pictures from New Horizons about the dwarf planet Pluto, and many have been forced into a stunning but unavoidable admission: they’ve been wrong about Pluto for a long time.
What they found on Pluto was not at all what they were expecting to find. Scientists were expecting to find it heavily cratered, “a flat, dead world similar to our moon.” Instead, what they actually found was:
- Icy Volcanoes
- The heart shaped area (right side partially faded) visible in the picture above named sputnik planum, of which scientists note “…this Texas sized basin of ice appears to be boiling.”  Planetary scientist Jani Radebaugh likens it to “a lava lake in slow motion” made of nearly frozen Nitrogen cooled until the texture is that of tooth paste.
- Other areas feature a young looking surface, with no record of crater bombardment as expected. “These features are very, very young…Pluto is active today. That’s the headline.” says Planetary scientist Dan Durda.
- An active geology driven by heat
- and “there’s pretty good circumstantial evidence that Pluto has a massive ocean in its interior” says New Horizons mission principle investigator Alan Stern.
While scientists are willing to fess up to being wrong when confronted with objective data like that supplied to them from their own instruments aboard the New Horizons space probe, it is unlikely that they are willing to acknowledge error with regard to the below lessons, save the first, which they cannot deny without being accused of being science deniers. Continue Reading
(Or: Big Bang Magic Part 3:
Pulling Back the Veil on the five biggest questions about the universe)
Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, cosmology these days is not an objective science, devoted strictly to the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. There is an agenda that rules cosmology. An agenda that has nothing to do with science as confessed by Richard Lewontin: Continue Reading