Posts Tagged ‘Creation’

Holographic universe?

May 2, 2015

We communicate with each other using language. All languages must have a way to distinguish facts from logic and the conclusions that facts plus logic results in.

There is no “truth that replaced” an earlier truth. The objective truth, the kind of truth that the scientific method HELPS us find, through TESTING the ideas we have, that is the truth of the real world.

If you have an idea that overlays the world, and you think it’s all a hologram (I’ve read about this idea), that doesn’t mean it is. You have to show us exactly what that means in terms that the rest of us can understand and test.

Almost all religions and superstitions were beliefs that were not “truths replaced” but they diminished in their acceptance because they did not match empirical facts.

The Christian context for “Western civilization” meant a culture that believed in a God that was consistent. He was not capricious or given to whims and fancy like the pagan gods. This is the point Isaac Newton made.

Isaac Newton said the very fact that the practice of science was possible and resulted in consistent verifiable and repeatable results was compelling evidence that there was a God. In other words, he was a supporter of the idea we now know as “intelligent design”.

The SETI project shows us that anti-creationist scientists have no problem with the science of determining whether there is intelligent design in a physical phenomenon as a scientific endeavor itself and independent of whoever the designer of those designs may be. They only object on the scale of biology itself and on the collection of physics constants in hand.

In a very sneaky way, they say it’s a sneaky way to push creationism into science. They say this because they cannot let any “divine foot in the door”, as one Darwinian biologist said in a moment of candor. Many of them may not even be aware of this, having been conditioned to see things the way they say outwardly. There was a time when I did similar things in theistic topics.

And yet they have no problem with the ones that say aliens designed us. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.

Creation deniers have a new religion, although they won’t acknowledge it. They themselves incorporate pagan mysticism into their beliefs. This is why Hindus sometimes see hints of their own origins theology in the Big Bang and theories like the “holistic universe”. Darwinian evolution, which in essence says all life has its origins in rocks and water and sunlight, is an ancient pagan superstition:

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. – Jeremiah 2:27

Some ancient Greeks even abbreviated the Darwinian idea in writings that survive to this day.

An irony: those writings were preserved by Christian monks throughout these centuries. This love for literacy is a heritage left us through St. Patrick who taught literacy and left a love for the written word to his Irish disciples and their disciples, and through Charlemagne’s use of the Irish and British monks, to us today.

Atheism is irrational

January 29, 2015

The insanitybytes blog at: inspired this response…

Many an anti-creationist posting on Christian blogs is just a troll.
He’s just ranting and accusing others of ranting.
He’s condescending and sneers that you’re condescending. He ridicules, and just makes a caricature of himself.
His whole rant is ad hominem, and he thinks it makes him smart to accuse somebody else of ad hominem.
He uses an Egyptian-sounding moniker, thinking this makes him some kind of spiritually superior, but it only labels himself as a snob.

His ravings turn his accusations of lunacy upon himself and corroborate this blog.
The most loudmouth anti-creationist scientists go into panic mode when they contemplate debating a real live Creationist scientist. Even with an audience full of people who have been indoctrinated in the materialist (null) explanation of Origins through twelve and even sixteen years, while subjected to the same indoctrination in “news” reports, movies, anti-Christian lawsuits, they still go into panic mode and warn their colleagues against trying it. I saw the memo in the book “Science and Creationism”, in which the editor and compiler of these anti-creationist essays admits having been resoundingly humiliated in such a debate. In order to bolster his darwinian fantasies, he asked a bunch of people for their essays.

In those essays, a biochemist in the book fantasized how a few linkups among a few amino acid molecules “proved” abiogenesis. Harvard recently got a million-dollar grant to study how abiogenesis could have happened.

Meantime, anti-creationists run with panic from the issue, saying it’s not part of evolution. Read on ahead when you can stop laughing.

Asimov made his points against a creationist argument that creationists would never use with an unbeliever, and avoided the science.

Stephen Jay Gould came right out and said explicitly that science has to believe some things that are not provable using the scientific method.

One guy from UC Berkeley couldn’t refrain from proudly using the label “pagan”. A haughty spirit goeth before a fall.

Just shows: The mouth of a fool poureth out foolishness.

Darwinians always pretended that new evidence for Creation as if it were opposite

August 23, 2014

God owns creation, and there’s nothing wrong with “proving” it, because He himself said in the writings of Psalms that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Even the most important events in human and world history, the birth, death by crucifixion and resurrection, reflect themselves in evidence, as Paul’s teachings in the book of Acts and the epistles emphasize so much.

The foolishness of God is indeed wiser than the wisdom of men, who proclaiming themselves to be wise became fools. So it says too.

Despite the success of the anti-Christian and anti-theist propaganda machine, more and more evidence hits the science community with regularity now, and with the same dogmatic tenaciousness they immediately use the evidence that testifies to Biblical truth as if it supported them!

It’s the same logic that uses the failure of government programs to claim that we need more government!

Evidence of the Flood in the Grand Canyon, now they say it’s slow erosion. Sea fossils everywhere, even atop the highest mountains of the Himalayas. (My buddy from Iowa says they were all over the ground).

DNA, with the language of a symbolic digital computing machine more designed, more sophisticated, than all the Internet combined.

Pasteur disproved the Darwinian presumption of the say that life was constantly spontaneously appearing. So they said it was a long time ago, it could have happened, the alternative is believing the Bible, so forget it.

Then Mendel’s experiments and Lysenko’s flopping failure showed that kind indeed did beget after its own kind only, not into other kinds, so they said it took so long we can’t observe it.

Then they discovered DNA that so contradicted the spontaneous unguided myth that one of its discovered began to blame aliens. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, and the Inquisition of the Faith of Darwinian Dogma proclaimed that they had gladly discovered how it all happened all by itself without intervention.

So they plagiarized the creationist idea of “natural selection” which had obviously showed how natural wild populations kept generally stable populations, and said that was the magic sauce. And don’t tell them they did not use the scientific method to conclude this, because they are the scientists and Darwinian’s heretics are kooks.

So then NASA scientists said we’ll prove it, we’ll send a satellite out to measure the magnetic fields of the outer gas giants and it’ll be so-and-so much.

–But creationist Russ Humphreys said, aha, it’s been this long since Creation happened around 6-7,000 years ago, and the universe was created starting with water as in Genesis, and this and that, and some calculations and voila. Based on Genesis One, it’ll be between x and y.

So it turned out that NASA was orders of magnitude off, Humphreys hit a bullseye, so NASA said no predictions about Mercury.

Darwin said no fossil record, no Darwinism.

Stephen Gould says the fossil record stands against evolution, so therefore the lack of it proves MY theory of evolution, which says that it happened in spurts so fast of COURSE we can’t find the fossils!

But of course the Creation itself is infused with the testimony to the Creation.

Cosmos, SETI, and Drake’s unscientific equation

July 21, 2014

In reaction to ajaytao2010’s post and comments at:

I remember one of his Cosmos episodes had Sagan saying he thought the Hindu version of a Creation story was closest to the correct one. I think he was the one also who saw the alien meme serving to help replace religion in people’s minds. He apparently made the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life his own such replacement.

Funny that SETI lifts up Drake’s equation to say it’s worth it, but go to Michael Crichton’s essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming” for a scathing rebuke to scientists for ever treating Drake’s equation as meaningful at all. He pointed out that *every single one* of the components of the formula was completely and totally arbitrary with absolutely no way to know any of it.

Have you noticed how aliens play the role of (pagan-type) gods in science fiction stories and from what I saw in one or two “UFO”-themed magazines, them too?

Creation debate, Ken Ham and Bill Nye

January 17, 2014

MEMO to the clueless: Many of the biggest names in young-Earth Creation Science came there following the evidence, where they found a fact-based faith.

Somebody said it’s not a good idea to debate creation science because “there’s no debate”? Oh right. This is another algoreian myth: True because authority says so? Anti-creationists used to use this as an argument against Creation Science, as if a Creation scientist expected an atheist to believe in Creation just because the Bible says so.

Creationists hear this today and roll their eyes, “There they go again!” And then they say so-and-so percent of the population believes [darwinian] evolution happened, as if that were another “evidence” as to why there should be no debate? So how did new ideas in science ever overcome the prevailing ones? Oh, that’s right, the old paradigm fought against the young mavericks until the mavericks took over and began enforcing new “scientific” dogmas.

These are certainly arguments even some of the “stars” of attacks against Creationism use, and it is a striking example of how even the smartest people, ahem, “brightest”, can use some of the dimmest ever arguments for something.

If something is true just because a majority of scientists believe it, then how can we ever expect to learn anything? Or, as some say against creationism, science is always “correcting itself”!

So your argument is about consensus among scientists? You know, the ones that used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth and got The Church to go along with it.

So long-ages cosmology is beyond question? That’s faith, and in this case, faith because the new Priestly Class, scientists blessed by Big Money and stagnant institutions, say so!

Too bad the very entertaining, quick-thinking and articulate Kent Hovind won’t be there. He even makes Ken Ham squirm. He has a way of clarifying the issues with a sharp wit that holds up pagan-era origins myths up to ridicule.

JEREMIAH 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.

27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.



I used to sit in the atheist chair

December 29, 2013
English: Diagram showing the steps of the scie...

English: Diagram showing the steps of the scientific method. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



I used to sit in the atheist chair, but determined to keep my mind open to whatever the truth was, and was dragged along by science, facts, logic, history to the Bible.


The Creator has a right to laugh at those who plot against him. Isa 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.


It is ridiculous to question the truth. Cellular life, DNA, appearing for no reason from the dirt plus water plus sunlight, entropy violated, 20 anthropic principle physical universe values fine-tuned, spiral galaxies, dozens of objects that contradict the red shift distance calculation, Pasteur’s research showing life cannot come from non-life, Mendel showing that traits are inherited, not so spontaneous, mathematicians showing that DNA amino-acids spontaneously sequencing just so cannot happen, blood clotting requiring 12 steps of specific chemistry, most involving irreducibly specific compounds that cannot “evolve” stepwise, too many benevolent mutations required, polystrate fossils, polonium halos, soft tissue in T-rex fossils with the stink of rotting flesh, the Lensky E Coli experiment where the little cells adapt just like from the beginning and E Coli is still E Coli, creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicting the outer planets’ magnetic field strength spot on based on Genesis One and all of NASAs geniuses missing by orders of magnitude, evidence of the Flood all around with shared flood memories in the most remote cultures, carvings in ancient temples depicting dinosaurs, Ica stones, uniqueness of Earth.


See, creationists like to talk about science, atheists like to talk about religion. Creation scientists debate with facts, anti-creationists debate with ad-hominems. Creation scientists rely on the scientific method, Stephen Gould said We don’t need the scientific method anymore.


But a Darwinist himself, Lewontin, blatantly admits that anti-creationists don’t care about the evidence for or against God or the Bible:


Lewtontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.








Pastor Jeffress is wrong: Billions?! O’Reilly likes Bible doubters

March 25, 2013
English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were n...

English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were not ashamed, as in Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (KJV) illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is my reaction to this story at Christian News:

Pastor Jeffress CANNOT believe in the Bible “cover to cover” if he does not believe its historical accuracy in the straightforward reading of it. The six-day creation is emphasized scripturally in 21 different ways right there in Genesis One, by the word “day” itself, PLUS the ordinal numbering of the day (the 2nd day is the day after the 1st day), PLUS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the emphasis given to the 24-hour day as we know it by the use of the “evening and the morning”.

Make no mistake: Jesus believed in the Creation as told in Genesis, it’s plain to see and clearly shown. He talked about Adam and Eve, and He who made them.

Wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing have infiltrated congregations and are teaching doctrines of devils.

Jeremiah 2 shows you that Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution are just ancient pagan myths, a “stock art my father” and a rock “hath brought be forth”. Nothing new under the sun. This is a materialistic superstition of modern pagans (atheists) who cling to these dogmas so as to escape believing in God.

Besides, the facts of science itself has brought 10s and 100s of thousands of hard physical scientists to faith in God. Polonium halos, polystrate fossils, inverted sedimentary layers, sea shells covering the land surface in every conceivable corner of the world, the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record testifying to original special creation of each kind, the spectacular design of the purely symbolic digital coded language of DNA, the spot-on prediction of the magnetic field strength of Saturn and Uranus by young-earth Creation scientist Russ Humphreys (putting to shame all the official dogma-enforcing NASA scientists –and prediction based on Genesis One)…

The list is tens of thousands of proofs of the precise accuracy of the word of God and the facts make fools out of the smarter-than-thou snotty-nosed class that have to revise their own dogmatic just-so blabber every couple of years because the FACTS keep proving them wrong over and over again.

Cold Fusion — 18 Years and Heating Up

February 12, 2011

All this news about room-temperature fusion and other so-called “free energy” technologies are getting more exciting all the time:

Cold Fusion — 18 Years and Heating Up:

There are links to some promising developments in research.

A UCLA tabletop experiment got honorable mention in the journal “Nature”, an establishment science publication, Fleischmann has connected with a project that may have commercially-ready devices on the market within a year.

One researcher working at Oak Ridge National Laboratories published a paper reporting that a bombardment of a solvent with neutrons and sound waves triggered tiny bubbles and nuclear fusion reactions. He was later completely exonerated of charges of misconduct and fraud by Purdue University after independent verification of his results by other colleagues.

Arthur C. Clarke has called for support for research in new energy.

Libertarianism vs. Social Conservative values

November 24, 2010

There are plenty of Christian libertarians who are “social conservatives” like I think Ron Paul is.

God bless the defenders of freedom!

–Government should not be used by social conservatives or liberals or anybody to impose their moral philosophies on others. But there are minimum government duties (enforcing contract, property, where some issues are decided in “consensus” (but not “engineered consensus a la UN either).

–Federal government in the USA has no constitutional jurisdiction over pro-life or pro-abortion either way, the courts even less, no matter what semantics are tortured to lie about that. At local levels, libertarians should consider losing one’s life to another’s whim as the ultimate abuse of power, and most egregiously so if it is the most helpless among us.

The life vs. abortion debate should be all about the baby.

–Marriage always was a cultural recognition that the nuclear family (aka the “natural famly”) is the best protection for children and an ideological defense against state indoctrination of the next generation. This is why Hollywood and other Stealth Leftist Control-Freak Propaganda has decoupled marriage from the family and made it an expression of romantic and sexual love between man and woman, which led to today’s confusion.

In any case, no constitutional argument can say the Bill of Rights applies either way to same-sex “marriage”. Efforts to do so are based upon the presumption that the state can redefine any cultural attribute it likes for purposes of state control.

That is evident in the fact that even same-sex marriage advocates are denying that they advocate other expansions of the definition, like marriage between blood siblings, polygamy, men and animals, and so on.

I was once a Communist. One of the goals listed in the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of marriage.

–Sexual tension, pregnancy problems, monthly hygiene, troop cohesion and morale, are legitimate issues when discussing military defense, most obviously relevant in submarines and in combat. Minimal Defense only -at Ron Paul levels- is a legitimate federal duty. (Which also means bringing the troops home from unconstitutional (therefore illegal) wars and the other hundred places around the world.

Making America stronger by respecting the Constitution and the rights of its citizens is a better defense against foreign enemies than the interventions of recent generations.

–Creationism vs. evolution is moot as a government issue because the government should leave it to parents to decide and get out of education altogether completely.

The presumptions that parents either don’t care about the best education for their children and/or that they are too stupid to be entrusted with choice is an arrogant upper-class myth.

–Contrary to some Internet myths and denials, most views associated with “social conservatives” are very much compatible with economically conservative ideas and with libertarian ideals.

As a matter of fact, the loss of moral philosophical foundations that are external to the individual but universal in their applicability, are very closely linked to the rapid loss of freedom in the 20th century in countries formerly Christian, for example, even as some Christian principles like abolition and equal worth of all people increased in the body politic.


Is the constitution unconstitutional?!

April 17, 2010

A judge in Michigan says she understands the constitution better than the original body that designed the American Constitution, and has declared the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional!

These are people raised in history classes where they deliver indoctrination instead of history!

The Constitutional Convention at one point was stuck in a stalemate, and it looked like we were going to be thirteen independent little states on their own. But Benjamin Franklin suggested that they all just do a serious prayer meeting to ask for God’s help. Once upon a time the Smithsonian featured a public showing of a painting of this prayer meeting, showing all those representatives on their knees seeking God for guidance. That would be before they started purging such tokens of America’s Christian beginnings.

Better for us, to free the National Day of Prayer from interference or compromise from the overbearing involvement of government.

But idiot rulings like this are insane, another contortion of logic that requires either limited thinking abilities or a malicious disregard for the letter AND spirit of the Constitution.

What religion does a National Day of Prayer establish, in view of the fact that the most diverse religions possible participate?

What atheist is prevented from practicing their own atheism however they like? After all, this is their claim when it comes to banning homage to God within public service.

And government money? They should complain, hey! Billions of dollars goes to research by scientists that continue to try to disprove the Bible from the first chapter.