Creationism

Darwin v. Darwin

Wayne — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:07:24 -0400

When Naturalists preach their Darwinian nonsense, an effective retort (were it not for Naturalists' profound stupidity) would be:

"How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!"

In other words, the assumed worldview provides the interpretation of facts. If the worldview is wrong, the interpretation like is, too.

The author of this quote was Charles Darwin. It's called Darwin's Dictum.

Thanks, Vox.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1605

Flood Waters

Wayne — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:48:42 -0500

Naturalists deny any possibility of a global flood here on Earth, yet they've begun talking about the very same on Mars. In fact, they believe there are great glaciers of frozen water underneath the surfaces of Mars, Titan (moon of Saturn), Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa (these last three are moons of Jupiter). For Mars in particular, Naturalists are now suggesting its global flood may have happened "when large amounts of groundwater burst on to the surface" of the planet, a la "fountains of the deep" (Proverbs 8:28).

[S]ecular researchers have no problem accepting a global or near-global flood or floods on Mars, despite not having found a drop of liquid water anywhere on Mars to date (and even before there was any ice found). But a global Flood on Earth, a planet that is mostly covered by water? No way! How could that be? "Where is all the water for such a flood?", they mockingly ask, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are standing on a planet that is mostly covered by water.

Note that Earth is mostly covered by liquid water, something that hasn't been found to exist elsewhere in our Solar system. Elsewhere, any water found is locked up in its frozen form, although the gas giants may have some water vapor at particular altitudes of their atmospheres. [The term "ice", as used by astronomers, can mean other frozen substances and not just frozen water. "Water", on the other hand, is H₂O in most any of its forms, frozen, liquid, or vapor.]

"Fountains of the great deep" are not a problem, it seems—anywhere but on Earth which is two-thirds covered with water. In fact, there is so much water in Earth’s oceans alone that if its surface features were smoothed out, the water would cover the planet to a depth of about 3 km (1.8 miles). Furthermore, seismic studies suggest that beneath the surface, in one form or another, there is still sufficient water to fill Earth’s oceans more than ten times over again.

Notice how stupid one can be when one's worldview is in gross error.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1421

"Scientific" Faith

Wayne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:59:37 -0500

For 150 years, idiots have been looking for the mythological planet Vulcan. No, it's not the one from Star Trek, although they did take the name from this myth. 150 years ago, astronomers began looking for a hypothetical planet with an orbit between Mercury and the sun. They theorized its existence because Mercury's orbit was not behaving as the models were predicting. They predicted an elliptical orbit, and they saw one, but they also observed this ellipse slowly rotating (the foci were not stationary as the models predicted). They concluded there must be another planet, a fairly large one, that was pulling Mercury's orbit around.

In 1915, when Einstein's General Relativity was published, the matter was resolved. Mercury's orbit was rotating because it was supposed to based upon the curvature of spacetime. This required a whole new physics, though, that integrated time as a fourth dimension of the fabric of the universe. When the new physical model was used, there was no longer any need for Vulcan.

These days, so-called scientists are spending a fortune looking for a modern day "Vulcan" in the forms of dark matter and dark energy ("dark" because they cannot detect them). Spiral galaxies aren't winding themselves up as General Relativity would predict, so they invented "dark matter" to compensate. The universe is expanding and they don't know why, so they invented "dark energy" to explain it. To date, neither of these modern myths has been detected.

Earlier this decade, Moshe Carmeli published his new physics, a five-dimensional model of spacetimevelocity, that incorporated the expansion of the universe into the fabric of the universe. Then, in 2007, John Hartnett published his extension that included a bounded universe assumption (bounded vs. unbounded is always an assumption, the latter consistently made by secularists). Hartnett and Carmeli have amply demonstrated there is no need for the mythological "dark matter" and "dark energy" any more than there was a need for Vulcan. Galaxies aren't winding themselves up because the fabric of spacetimevelocity is holding them in place. The universe is expanding because that's an inherent trait. No "dark" anything is necessary.

Nevertheless, astronomers and cosmologists refuse to accept Carmeli's and Hartnett's work, especially the latter, because their model is based upon galactocentrism (our galaxy, the Milky Way, is near the center of the universe). Nevertheless, Hartnett's treatment of Carmeli's 5D spacetimevelocity better fits observed phenomena than does the Big Bang. In fact, numerous problems with the Big Bang simply fall away, explained quite simply, in Hartnett's and Carmeli's Cosmological General Relativity. Still, secularists refuse to embrace the new physics, because it challenges their preferred assumptions (i.e., their religion). For example, they assume our galaxy is nothing special and so cannot be at the center, despite mounting evidence. If we're special, then special creation gains credence, yet their dogmatic, almost rabid attachment to Naturalism is all-pervasive, and so they cannot allow for special creation. Recent observations about the speed of galactic rotation have also assumed all kinds of wrong things about the mass of our galaxy, because they insist upon using outdated physical models.

I don't anticipate Naturalists will give up their doomed Big Bang model anytime soon. After all, 150 years later, and over 90 years after General Relativity eliminated the need for Vulcan, there are still a few fools looking for this nonexistent planet--and there is not even a religious worldview at stake! Their dedication to what can only be called a false faith might be admirable were it not totally stupid. Likewise, Big Bangers' dedication to their false faith will die a very hard death, and only begrudgingly so--perhaps some 100 years from now. In the meantime, real scientists, those admitting their prejudices and able to see the facts for themselves, will embrace Cosmological Relativity as the reigning, most accurate model to date.

Using Cosmological Relativity and assuming a bounded universe, Hartnett demonstrates how the entire universe can indeed be a mere 6,000 years old as measured by clocks on Earth. No trickery. The expansion of a bounded universe would produce marked time dilation effects, making clocks "out there" run much faster than clocks here on Earth and allowing for billions of years "out there" while only a short time passed here (less than a single day, in fact). When we look out into the stars beyond about 6,000 lightyears (just our little corner of our galaxy), we're actually seeing creation week itself. Remember, when you observe at such great distances, you're seeing things as they were 6,000 years ago, because that's how old the light is when we see it on Earth. We're directly observing Day Four of creation, when the heavens were stretched out by God Himself. According to Hartnett's theory, the universe stopped expanding on Day Four, else we'd see massive blueshifts. Since we see the universe still expanding, if we look far enough out, we're actually observing creation itself as it happened on Day Four! How awesome!

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1388

Dating Methods

Wayne — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:06:02 -0500

So-called "scientists" of the secular variety enjoy jabbing creation scientists. They stupidly claim creation science is not a science at all, all the while practicing something that cannot possibly be called science by even their own definitions. Here is a good description of how these priests of Evolution use dating methods.

If you read the short article, you can see how they can get just about whatever dates they want and "confirm" these dates just as ludicrously. Throughout this "scientific" slight of hand, they utterly fail to recognize the numerous assumptions they make in their feeble attempts to affix the desired age to items. These techniques differ little from the lies, tricks, and fables concocted by religious cults (like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Scientologists). Perhaps such "scientists" should indeed be more properly named as priests of a laughable and easily disproved faith called Naturalism.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1370

5D Creation Model

Wayne — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:04:39 -0500

Cosmological Relativity is a relatively new theory (pardon the pun) that, when applied to a bounded universe, becomes an extremely viable theory for the creation of the universe, consistent with God's account in Genesis. It also resolves many of the apparent problems with Humphreys' 4D white-hole theory (e.g., missing blueshift, gravitational distortion, etc.).

Cosmological Relativity is the product of Dr. Moshe Carmeli but was applied to a bounded universe by Dr. John G. Hartnett. In short, it adds to Einstein's 4D Relativity (3 spatial dimension, plus time) a fifth dimension inherent in the fabric of the universe, called expansion velocity. Expansion velocity is a metric describing, obviously, the speed at which space is expanding. Rather than inventing a canard called "dark energy", expansion velocity is merely an inherent trait of space-time-velocity just as length, width, and height are inherent in space. It's rather simple and elegant, a nice hallmark of the biggest leaps in cosmological thought.

Humphreys' white-hole theory was based upon Einstein's 4D space-time, while Hartnett's is based upon Carmeli's 5D space-time-velocity. The latter, then, becomes the first truly viable theory of cosmogeny. Better still, it explains observed phenomena much better than the ill-fated Big Bang religion. Going still one better than secular theories, Carmeli's Cosmological Relativity actually predicted an accelerating expansion of the universe as has only recently been observed.

One of the necessary givens needed to make Hartnett's theory work is that the Earth (the Milky Way galaxy, in fact) must be very near the center of the universe. (In a bounded universe, there is indeed a center, unlike the unbounded Big Bang. Bounded or unbounded, this factor is a necessary assumption as it cannot be observed. Secularists choose to blindly assume unbounded merely to support their godless faith in ex nihilo creation.) The recently observed quantization of redshifts, strongly suggesting universal rotation of concentric "shells" (hollow spheres) of galactic clusters, also centers very near the Earth. This observational data means a geocentric universe (approximately, on the cosmic scale) need not be an assumption but a reasonable and evidential hypothesis.

All this to say, I'm excited that creation scientists now have a workable theory with which they may proceed to defeat, eventually utterly, the secular creation religion of the Big Bang. Given enough time, Lord tarrying, the idiots buying into this false religion will eventually look the fools the few of us creationists know them to be. God be praised!

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1312

CA goes after Christians again

Wayne — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:41:41 -0400

Fox reports again on the recent attacks against Christians by the CA University system. In this case, the University is denying course credit to students who learn from a Biblical or creationist worldview. Absolutely predictable, of course. The ungodly world--don't fool yourself into thinking America is still Christian by any means--is on the warpath against God's followers. This is just an attempt to discredit creationism while avoiding any scientific investigation into its claims.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the CA University system and its courts. I want to thank all the ungodly who are attacking God's followers in this way. The American church is complacent, having compromised with the ungodly for far too long. This sort of ruling makes the choice far clearer for believers. Choose this day whom you will serve: man or God. Either your education glorifies God with the truth, or it will be a sham (a means to an end) used merely to kiss the world's a--. Very soon (decade? two?), it may become all but impossible for Christians to attend institutions of "higher learning"--what a crock this label has become!--without denying the Word of God, to their eternal peril. It may be that if you want a degree--don't get me started on how vacuous degrees really are today--you'll have to sell out your faith in favor of false doctrines, lies, and outright denial of יהוה (the LORD)'s Lordship.

True believers may have to resign themselves to rejecting the world's ways and all that comes with that rejection. Countless fields of endeavor may be closed off to them. The potential advances in these fields otherwise attributable to believers may not happen as they could have. Christians, in remaining faithful, may be relegated to second-class citizens. Bring it on!

What the American church needs is some pruning. Let's cut off the deadwood and burn it to hell. We can purge the church of the con-artists that are today's pastors (e.g., anyone perverting the doctrine of tithing) and fad-gurus (e.g., Dave Ramsey [surely the worst!], Rick Warren, Bruce Wilkinson). We can shed the money-grubbing, Word-denying, self-serving corporations that are today's churches. Self-professing Christians need to understand truly the costs of discipleship. The choice they face, the world or the Lord, needs to be clearer if they're to make the correct one without compromise. Part of me hopes this CA decision will infect the nation and spread, if only to make clear the choice for or against Christ.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1190

Dividing Word

Wayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:17:08 -0400

One of the more divisive topics in the church today is creationism, specifically young-earth creationism. The vast majority of the modern church--in America anyway--has swallowed the old-earth, evolutionary hogwash, hook, line and sinker. They tend to get visibly upset, emotional, when they meet a fellow believer who actually believes in what the Word plainly says. Such an emotional reaction tends to imply a weak faith (in their old-earth belief). After that, reasoned discourse is usually very difficult if not impossible.

The principles are rather simple. Either the Word of God is indeed His Word or it's not. If not, then everything is up for debate and nothing is sure--not even the Gospel. If it is His Word, then either Genesis is true or it's not. If it's not true, the God lied to us. If Genesis is true, though, then the earth is only about 6000 years old.

The word "day" in Genesis 1 is the same as elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. It's simply a day. No fancy semantics. 24 hours. One rotation of the earth. It's not six "ages" but six days. The only way to deny this plain definition of the word "day" in Genesis 1 is to deny the Word of God.

Some old-earth Christians like Hugh Ross try to do just this, deny the Word of God. They think Genesis 1 is a metaphor, despite no contextual support for this. They think each day stands for an eon of creation that closely resembles Evolution and the Big Bang, in spite of the radically different ordering (e.g., stars, sun, and moon aren't created until day 4 while light is day 1, contrary to naturalism). You cannot believe in the fable that is an old earth without denying the Word of God, and such denial has dire consequences. Once you start denying portions of the Word, other portions begin to fall. If there was death before the Fall, then either sin and death aren't related or there was sin before the Fall. Sin before the Fall would mean God did not actually create everything as good; He must have created sin and death, marring His perfect character. Only when creation is good, and only when sin is introduced through conscious choice of man and not God...only then is the Gospel not watered down or drowned out completely. When the Gospel falls, so does our Lord's victory over sin and death, so does resurrection and eternal life.

Why do so many buy into the old earth fiction? At its simplest, they're trying to be of the world and yet still a follower of Christ. You can't have it both ways. I find it poetic that you must deny old-earth B.S. in order to fully submit to God; holiness means being separate, and nothing so quickly separates a believer from the world today than proclaiming a Biblically young earth.

Besides the theology, there's the science. There's abundant evidence for a young world. As Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis states, we're all looking at the same evidence; we just interpret it differently. Old-earthers see support for billions of years. Young-earthers see support for one that's only about 6000 years old. However, much of the evidence must be ignored by old-earthers, else their faith will be shaken. They have no answers for this conflicting evidence. Young-earth scientists are few relative to Bible-deniers, but they are rapidly and steadily developing theories to fit the evidence. While the problems in old-earth theories not only abound but increase as more evidence is found, the problem sin young-earth theories are diminishing, thanks to the work of those faithful few scientists who can be honest about their faith and science.

At its core, it's simple: choose now whom you will serve. Will it be the One, True God who created the world in six days? Or will you reject God's Word by embracing the wrong theories of a world that hates its Maker?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1114

Courses offered; sign up now

Wayne — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:59:53 -0400

As the spring dance recital season is coming to a close--just one more weekend--I'm beginning to fill up my summer schedule for those interested in the courses, "Firearms 101" and "Biblical Cosmology". They will be taught in my home. I prefer to teach the former one-on-one, so I'm willing to schedule it multiple times. (I'll certainly consider very small groups, though.) The latter is better with small groups and will also be highly interactive--the first to respond gets to choose the preferred date. I recommend planning for a three hour block for each course but as it's personalized instruction, it's up to you.

I've delayed many people until June because of my busy schedule of late, but I'm starting to fill my calendar now. Since demand is unusually high, I expect my weekends will fill up quickly. If you're interested in either (or both) of these courses, please let me know (wayne [at] tuscanycircle [dot] net) sooner rather than later, else you're less likely to get the dates of your choice. Requests will be handled in the order in which they are received.

Range time is optional for the "Firearms 101" course, but it would be in addition to the class time. It may take place on the same day as the class (immediately following) or be scheduled separately, depending upon range hours, etc. I recommend Bull's Eye in Lawrenceville; you should call 770.963.6556 for their hours of operation (and range fees) before scheduling with me. Keep in mind, weekends are busier and may include some wait time. We may be able to separately schedule range time on a weeknight, though.

While I ask that you cover the cost of the range, ammunition, and targets, I do not charge for my time--unless you stand me up. Range fees are in the neighborhood of $10 per hour per person. Targets are typically $1-$2 each. Ammunition costs can vary wildly depending upon how many different calibers you want to try out and how many rounds you want to shoot. I would recommend planning for around $50, give or take. You may also consider taking the class first before deciding, scheduling, and budgeting for the range, as the class may help narrow down which firearms of mine you'd like to try; the down side would be that a separate trip would be required. I can loan you hearing and eye protection, so you need not provide these nor rent/buy them.

There should be no cost for the "Biblical Cosmology" course.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1088

Laughing at yourself

Dave — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:47:30 -0400

In my experience, it is a very bad sign when supposedly intelligent people clearly demonstrate that a) they have no sense of humor, and b) they cannot laugh at themselves.

First, check out this video. Now, have a look at this summary of Richard Dawkins' reaction to the video. Recall that this guy is supposed to be an "intellectual."

Sorry, Dick, but you don't get it, and we do. Too funny.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1037

Science versus naturalism

Wayne — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:53:17 -0400

Stupid scientists (which is the bulk of them, I'm afraid) regularly conflate science and naturalism as if they were synonymous. Science is a process (and a body of knowledge and a career, but these are beside the point), that's all. This process may be used within the context of many worldviews. Naturalism, on the other hand, is a worldview and a religion. Naturalism assumes a priori that the physical world (dark matter and dark energy notwithstanding) is all that there was, is, or will be. There is no scientific process behind this presumption; it is as much or more of a leap of faith as is a belief in the supernatural.

Intelligent Design (ID) simply makes the opposite assumption, that there are supernatural phenomena, and that something or Someone supernatural is responsible for designing the universe. Given this assumption, the scientific method can be used just as validly and just as effectively as it can be in the religion of naturalism. I dare say more so, because naturalists fail to recognize their own assumption/worldview/religion for what it is.

As an aside, note that Creationism is the Biblical subset of ID, a specific worldview from the set of worldviews represented by ID. It, too, starts with an assumption, that the Word of God is true. Within Creationism, the scientific method can again be used and tends to be used far more so than in naturalism. I should note, too, that ID is not Christian or even Biblical. All the opposition to it in the government prisons--er, schools--is without foundation, but merely a passionate defense of a logically and observably indefensible religion known as naturalism.

Einstein once said there is no such thing as empty space, that is, space without a gravitational field. Rewording, I assert there is no such thing as objectivity, that is, perception without an interpretive worldview. Failure to recognize (or admit) this truth is at the heart of the so-called* scientists' hatred toward Creationism and ID and their fervor for defending their cherished but misplaced faith in naturalism.

*I qualify "scientists" with "so-called" because it's difficult to bestow the title upon them when they fail to acknowledge how their religious views affect their process, were they to even execute the process correctly which they tend to fail to do far too often.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1031