What might Einstein think about flat earth theories?

Posted on by


There are plenty of resources available to debunk the proposition that the earth is flat. Some of the ones I think are most helpful are listed  in the resources section below. So “Why even bother addressing this theory?” you might might wonder. I pondered that question myself for a time, and decided I should address it for the following reasons:

1. Creationists are often accused of believing “crazy” things. Some make the charge that we are no different from believers in a flat earth, and some accuse us of believing in a flat earth.  In response, what better way to show creationists in general, (and this writer in particular) doesn’t believe in a flat earth than by debunking it? Doing so also gives the added benefit of distancing creationists from flat earth believers.

2. While many have approached this by providing various evidences of why the earth must be shaped like a globe, and not flat like a pancake as flat earth believers claim, I have not seen any debunkers that approach it this way – namely by looking at the physics of such a system as Albert Einstein might. So for these reasons I throw my hat into the flat earth debunking ring. Since I am approaching this from the stand point of an investigation of the physics as Albert Einstein might investigate it, let me describe the approach he would probably take, and the primary theory we must understand.

Continue Reading

Evolutionists: blind to the obvious – UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 4

Posted on by

Fossil trilobites

Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, evolutionists make claims that deny obvious truths, unaware that their claims refute their own position and arguments. Let me pause here to make sure you catch the point:

 Evolutionists are denying obvious truths.

In fact, the truths being denied are so obvious, one typically doesn’t even bother with a defense. If someone denies that birds fly and fish swim, do you bother with a defense, or do you simply tell them to go look at birds and fish? But Jesus took care to answer even foolish accusations, so let us do likewise. Continue Reading

Cosmologists Today: Tilting at Windmills

Posted on by

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.”[1].  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…”[2]

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.”[3]

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

Doubt the Bible? You Might be a Conspiracy Theorist

Posted on by

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy does an amusing routine you’ve probably heard at least pieces of.  He points out a situation that only an “unsophisticated” person would think is normal, and suggests if you do such things,  “you might be a Redneck.” I say “unsophisticated person” because Foxworthy defines those he references – Rednecks – as someone having a “Glorious absence of sophistication.” In case you haven’t heard any of his routines, here is a small sample of behaviors and thoughts that might qualify you as a “Redneck”:

“If you think a Quarter horse is that ride in front of K-mart…
…You might be a Redneck.

 

“If you think fast food is hitting a deer at 65 mph…
…You might be a Redneck.

 

“If you wear a dress that is strapless with a bra that isn’t…
    …You might be a Redneck.

 

“If your wife has ever said, come move this transmission so I can take a bath…
 …You might be a Redneck


It’s in that tongue in cheek vein that I present another set of behaviors that might qualify you for a group that is as distinguished as those who Foxworthy targets for his jokes.  This group consists of people with a certain mind set who cannot be dissuaded from their beliefs regardless of the evidence that is presented to them. In fact the more evidence you give them, the more likely they are to see it as a confirmation of their original belief. They are conspiracy theorists. And while this is presented a bit tongue in cheek, like most humor, it starts with a grain of truth – and it’s that grain of truth we’ll be targeting to see if those truths have taken root in  your thinking. So if you exhibit a number of these behaviors – you just might have the mindset of a conspiracy theorist. What are they? Let’s take a look. Continue Reading

UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 3: Codes and Complexity

Posted on by

We come now to some particularly egregious errors in our series to unmask the faulty logic and science behind defenses given for the theory of (neo) Darwinian evolution. Stated simply, Neo-Darwinism says that all life on earth derived via natural selection acting on random mutations in a population, with no purpose, design or intelligence used anywhere.  As this series points out, there are many, many reasons why this is impossible. Yet Darwinists try to come up with reasons why (according to them) it’s not only possible, but actually happened.

In this round up of memes, some of the defenses employed are so far off the mark, I wonder if the author of these mistakes is merely feigning ignorance, or if he is really ignorant of the glaring mistakes he is making. I’ll leave that to your judgment. Since I’ve subtitled this articles “Codes and Complexity”, let’s start with a meme that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the code that’s involved with DNA.

Continue Reading

Waiting for the End – A Meditation for Easter

Posted on by

Crucifixion of Jesus – Marco Palmezzano

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’–which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’  When some of those standing near heard this, they said, ‘Listen, he’s calling Elijah.’
One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. ‘Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,’ he said.
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.”

 

“It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.” When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
Mark 15.34-37; 42-45

Pilate was surprised to learn that Jesus had died so quickly. That was because Roman crucifixion was not merely an  execution. It was a slow death by way of torture, filled with excruciating pain, designed by the Romans to  extend the amount of time it actually took to die as long as possible. “Historically the process could take anywhere from 3-4 hours to 3-4 days. And there were reports of people living as long as 9 days on a cross.”[1] The Jewish leaders and Pilate were both expecting it to take days for Jesus to die as was typical. That’s why the Jewish leaders petitioned Pilate to have his legs broken (John 19.31).   Because when hung on a cross for crucifixion, “Modern forensic research shows that a person whose hands are bound above his head has severe trouble breathing.”[2] The results being that:

“The muscles that run between the ribs are basically fully extended which means the ribs are fully expanded, which means the chest is essentially passively full of air. In order to get the stale air and the carbon dioxide and all the waste gases out, the victim would actually have to actively lift themselves up to get the pressure off of these muscles and allow themselves to exhale.”[3]
Robert M. Morris, MD
ER Chief, Stanford medical center

Continue Reading

The Moral Argument – Revealer of Hypocrites

Posted on by

In the book of Daniel, we find one of the less frequently referenced titles of God. It’s just before the turn of the sixth century B.C. King Nebuchadnezzar who will soon to besiege and capture Jerusalem, has already captured the leading families in the southern kingdom of Judah and  carried away anyone with potential to Babylon. After the death of his father Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar has decided to clean house of fake wisemen and astrologers. His method of discerning who’s fake? He’s had a disturbing dream and has  decided that unless his “magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers” (Dan 2.2) can both tell him the dream and explain it, their fate is sealed. The king had firmly decided  he would “…have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble.” (Dan 2.5) if they could not both reveal the dream and interpret it.

It is in this context that the prophet Daniel, then a young man who had been carried off to Babylon with the other promising young future leaders, made known a rarely referenced, but often experienced (though not necessarily recognized) work of God: that God is the “revealer of mysteries.” (Dan 2.29 NIV;  KJV uses “secrets.”) God proceeds to reveal to Daniel both  Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the meaning, thus saving his life along with his friends and the other wise men.

God revealed truth that Nebuchadnezzar knew to be true. He dare not deny it. And to his credit he didn’t. The Moral Argument likewise reveals truth that all who are confronted by it know to be true. But unlike Nebuchadnezzar, those unwilling to acknowledge the existence of God are not as forthcoming. They will recognize the truth, but will refuse to verbally acknowledge it. Instead, they try to hide the obvious by suggesting a  number of common but ineffective excuses as to why the Moral Argument doesn’t prove God exists, or impose moral obligations. The excuses are ineffective because just as God is the revealer of mysteries, the Moral argument is the revealer of hypocrites and it exposes those who deny it. Continue Reading

Disney, Beauty and the Beast, and Boycotts

Posted on by

Emma Watson and Dan Stevens in Beauty and the Beast (2017)

With Disney’s increasing support of the gay agenda (“Gay Days” at it’s theme parks, increasing exposure of gay scenes in its films aimed at kids) and now with a “gay moment” overshadowing Disney’s new live action version of its classic “Beauty and the Beauty” it has some wondering out loud, “Is it Time to Kiss Disney Goodbye.” [1] Sadly, I have to say “yes” as I note in this tweet. And to further note my opposition to Disney’s move toward encouraging the gay agenda, I encouraged others to boycott Disney’s new Beauty and the Beast film: Continue Reading

UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 2

Posted on by

As I explained in the opening article of this series, the purpose of this series is to unmask the faulty logic and science behind defenses given for evolutionary thought. These faulty reasons wind up in memes presented as pseudoscientific (read false) explanations for why creationists are supposedly wrong when pointing out the various and numerous problems of evolution. So in this series I’ll point out why the claims evolutionists use to defend their faulty theory are wrong and why such explanations actually provide no defense for the failed theory of evolution.

In this group of evolutionary memes we’ll see primarily three types of problems:

1. Denials of basic evolutionary belief
2. Claims with no evidence, and/or no defense
3. Claims which avoid the issue and never address the problem that has been pointed out

Okay, so here we go. Links are provided for easy sharing Continue Reading

UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 1

Posted on by

If you spend any amount of time on social media you will inevitably come across memes. The concept of the meme has been around for some time, but has been rediscovered and adapted for use on the internet. In it’s current incarnation, a meme, as defined by Google is:

“a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc., that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.”[1]

Memes are perfectly suited for the internet and social media, where attention spans are short and tolerance for reading an entire article (like this one) on a topic is even shorter.  Memes tend to be very visual, and therefore  memorable, perhaps leaving a lasting impression. But when the meme expresses a false idea, you now have the problem of a falsehood being re-enforced by a false, but perhaps memorable meme.

Another problem is that since memes are short, the idea they express is almost never backed by sources you can consult to affirm or deny what is being expressed in the meme. And being short, as a rule they leave out critical detail and context and thus are prone to the fallacy of suppressed evidence –  failing to give all the information needed to come to the correct conclusion. All these problems are particularly true of memes that are propagated in support of evolution.

So given that: Continue Reading