All posts in Marianis from the Front

Laws of Logic – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Everyone uses the laws of logic, and they are evidence of the nature, design, and existence of God. Christians use the laws of logic to provide substantiation to the idea that God’s word is true, just as naturalists/evolutionists use them to argue their beliefs. God gave us the tools of logic so we can think, grow, learn, and do science.

The laws of logic “are rooted in God’s own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage ‘In the beginning was the Word [logos]’ (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, ‘In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind).’”[i]

There are numerous laws of logic.[ii] One of them is called the law of non-contradiction, which states that it is impossible for something to both be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. For example it is contradictory, or it doesn’t make sense, to say that “a banana is a fruit and a banana is not a fruit.” The banana is either a fruit or it isn’t. Another law is called the law of identity, where something is actually the same with itself and different from another, or not something different than itself. The law of excluded middle says that there are only two choices in every proposition, either it has to be true (and its negation false) or false (and its negation true). “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause.”[iii] “The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.”[iv]

Naturalists can’t sufficiently answer why these laws exist and will even try to ignore the laws of logic in some cases. In fact, one apologist says “perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.”[v] This is true when naturalists are forced to try to explain the cause of the universe without the most logical cause (the all-powerful, outside of time and space, God). The naturalistic worldview has a lot of unanswerable questions.

God did not create the laws of logic. The “laws of logic are contingent on God. They are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than your reflection in a mirror can exist without you.”[vi] Since God has always existed and thought, the laws of logic are also eternal. “It is impossible for God to think illogically because in the Christian worldview, logic is a description of the way God thinks. The believer has a universal standard of reasoning that makes sense within his own worldview. The atheist does not.” [vii] The atheist, who claims that the laws of logic are eternal, “fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.”[viii]

Icon of Paul the Apostle, Wikimedia Commons.

Icon of Paul the Apostle, Wikimedia Commons.

“The Christian worldview can make sense of [the] laws of logic. The Christian believes in universal, immaterial, invariant entities because God is himself omnipresent, immaterial, and invariant…As one example…the law of non-contradiction reflects God’s internal consistency: all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13); therefore, all truth cannot be contradictory. The Christian worldview makes sense of the law of non-contradiction…Atheists do believe in laws of logic, but they cannot justify the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws within their worldview.” They cannot answer “why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? An unjustified belief is arbitrary, which is one form of irrationality…In particular, those atheists who hold to a materialistic philosophy cannot make sense of laws of logic because laws of logic are not material.”[ix] “You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic.”[x]

Evolutionists have to borrow from fundamental Christian concepts to even be able to argue their points about evolution. “The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.”

The laws of logic could not develop slowly and could not be a product of evolution, but would have to exist conceptually from the beginning. As astrophysicist and apologist Dr. Jason Lisle asked, “if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions?”[xi] Check out more of his explanations:

“The atheist might say, ‘Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.’ But this is no different than the critic of air saying, ‘Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.’”

“The atheist might respond, ‘Laws of logic are conventions made up by man’…So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.”

“The atheist might respond, ‘Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.’ But then the laws of logic are not universal…In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain,” and thus they would be an arbitrary (and conflicting) standard, not universal.

“Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: ‘We use the laws of logic because they work.’ Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?”

“As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.”[xii]

Critics of the Bible often claim that one is illogical in believing that the miracles happened as described within the Bible. They “might argue that such things cannot happen based on known natural laws. With this we [creationists] agree. But who said that natural laws are the limit of what is possible? The biblical God is not bound by natural laws.”[xiii] With this and the evidence above, a belief in God is a very logical and consistent worldview.

“When the critic simply dismisses those claims of the Bible that do not appeal to his personal, unargued sense of what is possible, he is being irrational. He is committing the logical fallacy known as ‘begging the question.’ Namely, he has decided in advance that such things as miracles are impossible, thereby tacitly assuming that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles. But this is the very assumption with which he began his reasoning. The critic is reasoning in a vicious circle. He has decided in advance that there is not an all-powerful God who is capable of doing the things recorded in Scripture, and then argues on this basis against the biblical God.”[xiv]

Many “claim that the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradictory, it is not. The oneness and threeness of God refer to different aspects. The three eternal and co-equal Persons of the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are the same in essence but distinct in role—three Persons (or three centres of consciousness) and one Being.”[xv]

Many supposed contradictions within the historical texts of the Bible have been reconciled and ultimately are very minor or unrelated to the doctrinal claims and the internal and external consistency of the Bible.[xvi] “An important aspect of contradiction is self-refutation. Many statements by anti-Christians might appear reasonable on the surface, but when the statement is turned on itself, it refutes itself. Some common examples are:

  • ‘There is no truth’—this would mean that this sentence itself is not true.
  • ‘We can never know anything for certain’—so how could we know that for certain?
  • ‘A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically’ (the once popular verification criterion for meaning of the ‘Logical Positivists’)—this statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.
  • ‘There are no moral absolutes, so we ought to be tolerant of other people’s morals’—but ‘ought’ implies a moral absolute that toleration is good.”[xvii]

 

“By embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology…Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3)…Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic.”[xviii] The laws of logic are a tool that God has given us to use to help others see the evidence for God and to believe on Him. In Titus 1:9 (NIV), the apostle Paul instructs that a believer “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who opposite it.”

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 6:5, Ps 14:1, Prov 1:7, Is 1:18, Is 55:8-9, Rom 9:19-21, Rom 12:1-2, 1 Cor 2:16, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Col 2:3, 2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:9, Heb 1:3, Heb 13:8, James 1:17, 1 Pet 3:15, 2 Pet 3:8.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

 

[i] J.P. Moreland, What Are the Three Laws of Logic, April 20, 2011, Christian Apologetics, http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/what-are-the-three-laws-of-logic/, The Apologetics Study Bible,

[ii] Laws of logic, About.com, http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_lawsoflogic.htm, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iii] Yitzhak Melamed and Martin Lin, Principle of Sufficient Reason, September 14, 2010, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iv] Jeff Miller, God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality, 2011, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716, accessed July 24, 2014.

[v] Jeff Miller, God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality, 2011, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vi] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vii] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[viii] J. Warner Wallace, Is God Real? Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities,” March 20, 2014, A Disciple’s Study, Cold Case Christianity, http://llamapacker.wordpress.com/2014/03/page/13/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ix] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Can You Have Logic Without Laws?, 2012, Your Origins Matter: Conversations, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conversations/view/can-you-have-logic-without-laws/31, accessed July 24, 2014.

[x] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xi] Darius Viet and Karin Viet, Are the Laws of Logic Really Laws?, November 11, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/are-the-laws-of-logic-really-laws/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xii] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiii] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 13: Is the Christian Worldview Logical?, May 5, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiv] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 13: Is the Christian Worldview Logical?, May 5, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xv] Jonathan D. Sarfati, Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, August 1998, Journal of Creation 12(2): 142-151, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xvi]Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer, 101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible, http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/apologetic/contrads/, accessed February 28, 2014.

Supposed Bible Contradictions: Scripture Index, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/contradictions-scripture-index, accessed February 28, 2014.

Eric Lyons, M. Min., The Myth of “Factual Bible Contradictions, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=40, accessed February 28, 2014.

[xvii] Jonathan D. Sarfati, Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, August 1998, Journal of Creation 12(2): 142-151, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xviii] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Laws of Logic – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

What is logic and how does it work? We use logic everyday, even when we don’t think about it. “A simple definition of logic is ‘the study of right reason.’”[i] The laws of logic appear to be standardized, set rules for how to think. The laws of logic are important because without them science, and thinking in general, would not even be possible and humans would not able to develop any sort of advancements. Without the laws of logic, one would not even be able to debate or argue, such as we are doing now.

Many believe that humans have evolved and developed and are now able to understand (the development and use) those laws. Yet some believe that God created humans fully developed, intelligent, and with the primary tools of logic from our very creation. What are some of the laws of logic? How did the laws of logic come about? Did their origin come about from an intelligent being like God or could they have come about naturally?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Everyone uses the laws of logic to prove their points when teaching, or in arguments and debates. There is no scientific understanding of how they originated. They are philosophical concepts and thus science cannot explain or prove them. Some believe that the laws of logic have existed before the universe and some say that at the beginning of the Universe, at the beginning of time, space, and matter, the laws of logic just happened – just like how the earth just happened to develop where it has – naturally. A world in which the laws of logic do not exist “makes no sense.”[ii]

Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze  bust of Aristotle by Lysippus, c. 330 BCE.  The alabaster mantle is modern. - photo from Wikipedia commons.

Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze
bust of Aristotle by Lysippus, c. 330 BCE.
The alabaster mantle is modern. – photo from Wikipedia commons.

Some say that “the categories of logic did not drop from the clouds. These forms have taken shape in the course of the socio-historical development of humankind. They are elementary generalizations of reality, reflected in the minds of men and women.”[iii] The laws of logic are developed and created by man to be able to communicate reasonably with each other. “You don’t need a mind for time to exist, but you do for “September” or “ten o’clock.” And you don’t need a mind for logic to exist, but you do for the laws of logic.[iv] The laws of logic exist in the human mind because of human intelligence. “The universe isn’t subject to any laws of logic. The universe merely exists.”[v] Some also suggest that the laws of logic have developed (or merely exist) due to the sophisticated chemical make-up of the evolved human brain. Those with higher levels and abilities of logic and reasoning may even be more evolved.

A law of logic is “not a physical thing. But it is not a non-physical thing either. It is not an entity of any sort. It is a rule that can be expressed in the form of a hypothetical imperative: “If you have ‘if p, then q,’ and you have ‘p,’ then conclude q.” There is nothing at all mysterious, transcendent, or otherworldly about such a rule. It is just an instruction, an effective procedure for getting a valid inference from the given premises.” Materialistic atheists are not “illicitly reifying the rules of inference, turning them into transcendent entities.”[vi]

“The law of non-contradiction states that for any proposition p, ~(p & ~p), that is, it is not the case that both p and not-p. Do we need a transcendent ground or supernatural basis to justify or validate this rule? No, all we need is to recognize the futility of rejecting it…The law of non-contradiction is not an abstract, ideal entity. It is simply a rule we have to follow if we are to communicate anything at all.”[vii]

“Even odder is [the] claim that rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Couldn’t Allah be the eternal ground of logic? Why not Platonic ideas? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”[viii]

Some say that “the laws of logic actually require no explanation. Have you ever asked a Christian to explain why God exists? You probably received an answer that God’s existence requires no external explanation. God exists necessarily…Things that exist contingently require an explanation of their existence. Things that exist necessarily do not…The laws of logic are uncreated and exist necessarily. They could not have been otherwise. Therefore, the argument goes as follows:

  1. The laws of logic are necessary.
  2. Things that exist necessarily do not require an explanation of their existence.
  3. Therefore, any worldview that recognizes this adequately accounts for the laws of logic.”[ix]

Another way to say this is the Christian’s “stopping point [‘God did it.’ or ‘God just exists.’] is based on nothing. It has no evidence to support it. Contrast that with the naturalists’ logical and mathematical axioms. Unlike God, these aren’t taken on faith. They’re tested continually. Why would we want to ground the one that is strongly confirmed with evidence (logic) with the one that isn’t (God)? Why demand something solid to hold up the fundamental axioms but then use faith to hold up God?”[x]

“I’ll admit that “that’s just the way it is” isn’t completely satisfying, but “God did it” resolves nothing. The apologist won’t tell us why or how God exists; he just exists. This informs us as much as “fairies did it.” But if the Christian can have a fundamental assumption about reality (God), so can the naturalist (natural axioms)…But “God did it” is simply a repackaging of “I don’t know.” It tells us nothing new. I’m no smarter after hearing “God did it” than before. How did God do it? Why did God do it?”[xi]

Creationists claim that it is logical to think that things are so intricate that they necessitate a designer. “When falling sand in an hourglass forms a cone, does that require a supernatural cone maker? When a river changes course as it meanders over a flat valley, does that demand a river designer? When there is an earthquake, must the timing and placement of that be supernaturally ordained? No, there natural explanations for all these things.”[xii]

The Christian worldview is illogical in that Christians, with no evidence, have blind faith in a fairy-tale being, different in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, who performs miracles outside of the known laws of science. Many of the miracles may have actually been real scientific phenomena that these ancient people didn’t understand and therefore resorted to a god-figure or rather a Trinitarian god-figure, which also breaks the law of non-contradiction. How can God be three yet also be only one? All of these things, not to mention all of the contradictions within the Bible, clearly show that Christianity is illogical.

If God created the laws of logic, then he would have had to act illogically before he created them or possibly God is bound to the laws of logic and thus God is limited by these concepts. Can God violate the laws of logic? Whether yes or no, in this case, as well, either God is illogical or is limited. These are reasons why the idea of God does not make sense. The claim that “God did it” is simply asserted as truth without any evidence to back it up. “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”[xiii]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Bill Pratt, Is God Subject to Logic?, September 13, 2010, Tough Questions Answered, http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/09/13/is-god-subject-to-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ii] Michael Martin, Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?, 2000, The Secular Web, http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iii] Spacebuddha, Formal Logic and Dialectics, July 26, 2006, The Rational Response Squad, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/9293, http://www.marxist.com/science-old/logicanddialectics.html, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iv] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[v] The Laws of Classical Logic, October 6, 2012, http://editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classical_Logic, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vi] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vii] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[viii] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ix] Mike, Explaining Logic, September 30, 2011, Foxhole Atheism, http://foxholeatheism.com/explaining-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[x] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xi] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-3-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xii] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-3-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiii] Bob Seidensticker, Do Atheists Borrow From the Christian Worldview?, April 22, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/04/do-atheists-borrow-from-the-christian-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Interview Questions for Young Creation Evangelists

 

One of our goals at AOI is to not only spread the gospel as we teach the creation message, but also to train and equip others to go and do the same. We want to encourage those who God is calling to teach creation, whether formally or informally, and when possible, help them connect with local Creation teaching ministries – or even start one of their own!

With that in mind, we would like to share this interview with California high school senior Caleb. Caleb is the founder of Foundations Creation Club (https://www.facebook.com/FoundationsCreationClub) and is an example of how young people (and older ones as well!) can impact their community for the Lord using the creation message. If you or someone you know is involved in some type of creation ministry, be it full-time or simply actively using it as a tool to share the gospel, we’d love to hear about it! Email us at: traininginstitute@discovercreation.org

Maybe we’ll share an interview with you as well!

Foundations Creation Club BannerAimee: Will you tell us a bit about yourself? 

Caleb: I am in my senior year in high school and have been homeschooled since 6th grade. I have had the blessing of being a Boy Scout for the last 5 years, concluding with the achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout. I currently serve as a leader in our local Christian-homeschool Trail Life USA Troop (Trail Life is the Christian alternative to Boy Scouts). For the last 2 years, I have served as a leader in our church’s AWANA program. I have been interested in science since I was a young boy and dreamed of being a scientist, specifically a paleontologist or geologist. I still haven’t given up that dream, but I’ll tell you more about that later. ;) I am currently working alongside some other creationists in our area in a ministry called Genesis Apologetics (www.genesisapologetics.com) to reach our community with this vital creation information.

Aimee: Why do you feel that belief in creation is important?

Caleb: In discussions with youth pastors, I have learned about the strategy being used to reach today’s youth is to “reach them where they’re at”. This is a good strategy, but I fear that most youth ministers and pastors don’t know where the young people in their congregation are “at”. On the 5 days of the school/work week, “churched” young people are being indoctrinated in a worldview that completely conflicts with what they are hearing on Sunday morning. “Bible stories” like Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, and the Tower of Babel are treated as mere superstition while “science facts” like evolution and millions of years are trumpeted as being the only “rational” explanation for our origins. On the one day of the week that Christian leaders have the ability to speak the truth into the lives of their youth, it is important that they equip them with answers to the claims they are hearing during the rest of the week. If we are to see this generation accept the truth of Scripture, this an issue that has to be dealt with. After all, if you can’t trust the first 11 chapters of the Book, why should you trust the rest? This is where ministries like ours come into play.

Aimee: How long have you believed in creation over evolution? Was there some incident or discovery that you made that caused you to change your mind, or have you always believed it?

Caleb: For about 7 years. For the first 10 years of my life, all I heard was evolution and millions of years. I didn’t even know biblical creation was an option. I knew that the Bible taught a six-day creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood, and a young earth, but science books contradicted these things by saying that earth has been around for billions of years and that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. My response was one of confusion and apathy towards the Scriptures. It wasn’t until our family considered homeschooling that we were introduced to the biblical view of origins by a friend. We were loaned a creation book and volume 1 of the Jonathan Park radio adventure series, which helped us to understand what the Bible had to say about dinosaurs and fossils. Later, we attended a conference with Ron Carlson from Christian Ministries International, where he spoke on evolution and the age of the earth. This really helped our family to see the Bible in a new and refreshing light. For me, the Bible became more than a book of morals and stories; it became true history.

Aimee: Why did you start this creation ministry? What are your goals in the ministry? 

Caleb: The two verses that our ministry is built on (you could say that they are my “life verses”) are Psalm 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” and 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” Genesis is the foundational book of the Bible, the history upon which every doctrine of Scripture directly or indirectly rests. But this history is being attacked by the onslaught of evolutionary teaching in public schools, museums, and in pop culture. What are we to do? We must stand on Scripture and be able to give an answer to these claims and challenges to God’s Word, while filtering everything through the lens of a biblical worldview. This is why our ministry exists: to equip believers with the tools and information to effectively defend their faith in God and His Word.

Aimee: There are many creation evangelism efforts popping up all over the country right now. What do you think is an effective (and possibly new) way of making an impact? Please explain how you think it can go from an idea to practical application. (We absolutely don’t want to steal your ideas and we don’t have to make this public if you are worried about others stealing your idea, but we want to help you achieve and accomplish your “big” ideas!)

 

Caleb: This is a great thing! I am extremely excited to hear about smaller ministries lead by local families and congregations. Ultimately, this is the way the battle over origins must be won. Ministries like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research are great at equipping the saints, but it’s ultimately up to local ministries to make sure that these resources are getting into the hands of believers across the nation. There are many ways of doing this. One way is to ask ministries like the ones I just mentioned to come and give presentations at local churches. Sometimes there is a cost for hosting ministries like these, but if you can get people on your side who are willing to donate or help out, it is worth it. Another way is to give out free materials, like ICR’s Acts & Facts newsletter (though, I admit, it is a bit hefty for those not familiar with creation science) or Genesis Apologetics’ Fast Facts sheets (http://genesisapologetics.com/creation-vs-evolution-fast-facts/). Another way is to hold regular meetings, where you have a speaker from your area speak, or you can show a video if there are no speakers in your area. Try hard to get pastors and youth leaders in your area on board.

 

Aimee: What do you plan to do after graduating high school? Do you plan to continue in formal creation ministry?

 

Caleb: Absolutely! I am planning to go to college to earn an undergraduate degree in geology (Lord willing!), then pursue a graduate degree in the same (or a similar) field. Ultimately, I would like to work for one of the major creation research institutes or ministries, like AiG or ICR, as a speaker, writer, and research scientist.

 

Aimee: What advice do you have for other young people who want to do active ministry, whether it be creation focused or otherwise?

 

Caleb: Ministry has to be preceded by a close, personal relationship with Jesus. Part of this means getting into His Word (remember that Jesus’ words aren’t just the red letters!). This can be challenging sometimes, as it must be something that you faithfully commit yourself to. This will fuel you and equip you for the battle you will be getting into. When you focus on reading and meditating on the Scriptures, you will grow. Another thing to remember (this is something I have to constantly remind myself of) is that God doesn’t need you. This is clearly seen in the book of Esther, where Mordecai explains to Esther that even if she didn’t take a stand for her people, He could just as easily raise up someone else to do the job. But God wants you. This is a humbling thought that should lead you praise God for His amazing grace and providence.

 

 

 

By Aimee Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Modern Physics – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Physics (and math) have been discovered, not evolved. Naturalism can’t explain why physics and math are the way they are. Some naturalists don’t see this as a problem, because the fact that these mathematical and physical laws and principles exist is proof that they had to have formed to make the universe. “It’s perfect just because it is” isn’t a satisfactory answer. Naturalism doesn’t have an answer for how or why the laws of physics exist.

“Quantum mechanics [QM] really works, and has been strongly supported by experiment. The history and practice of QM shows no hidden motivation to attack a biblical world view, in contrast to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.”[i] Naturalists believe that the use of modern physics does, and will, give further evidence that there is no God and that they don’t need God. But from a creationist perspective, modern physics does, and will, continue to show the complexity of life and the universe , attesting to the fact that there is a supreme creator, an intelligence behind it all. Humankind will never catch up to the information hidden and evident within existence and that is a testimony to God’s wonderful omniscience.

In-The-BeginningGod has planned all of these things out, because He is all-knowing and all-powerful. In response to Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that there is no need for a creator, he places his faith in the idea that because of quantum mechanics, particles can “pop” into existence out of nothing. “So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”[ii]

Hawking also assumes that God has to act within time to create the universe. Hawking’s definition of God is flawed, in that, God is actually timeless and spaceless, not being limited by those constraints. Hawking and Naturalism still can’t explain the origin of the law of causality, the laws of physics, as well as numerous other laws and concepts. “This inability to provide a cogent replacement for God as the source of scientific law is hardly surprising. Once you dismiss the concept of a Creator God who is not only a living supernatural being, but one who is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it certainly is difficult to contrive an adequate substitute.”[iii]

In an attempt to answer the challenges to naturalism, naturalists suggest “that the universe is a three-dimensional ‘membrane’ floating through a four-dimensional ‘bulk universe’…They invoke higher dimensions and String theory to explain how their universe began and why it is. This is an appeal to new physics way beyond what we know now and can even hope to test experimentally, because it involves many more dimensions and takes place in some hypothetical past epoch and space.”[iv]

“This approach has been proposed with M theory, a form of String theory in as many as 11 dimensions (or even 28 in one form). Famously Leonard Susskind labelled the “M” in M theory as meaning ‘monstrous’. [The “M” stands for Membrane, though many think it should stand for “Magic,” “Mystery,” “Mother,” “Majesty,” “Madness” or other words that might fit better.[v]] M Theory and its cousin, String theory, are not physics but mathematics, which lack any predictive power in the real world and hence are untestable. This seems to me to be a grab for a solution, to find an uncaused cause, because the big bang (with its unbiblical sequence of events) needs a first cause.”[vi]

Because of the mysterious nature, one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics suggests that “it refutes both materialism and determinism opening the scientific door to the divine influence in the universe…it could provide a model for soul body interaction,” and the quantum mechanical indeterminacy may be “God working in the universe.”[vii] This is not to say that God is limited to working within known laws and processes, but possibly that the spiritual realm is quantum-ly entangled with the physical realm. “God is both the programmer and the source of power.”[viii]

These mysteries are tangible examples of how God is infinite, whereas we are finite. It is still mental gymnastics for us to try to figure out how our universe functions. God designed us for continual learning and the ability to do science (growing in knowledge) and that is part of what Heaven will be like – to be ALWAYS learning MORE about God. Heaven will not be a boring place. If we can slow down and appreciate how amazing and complicated our world is, we will realize that we will never stop learning and enjoying God’s creation.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Williams, A., and Hartnett, J., Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Arizona, 2005, p. 120.

Russell Grigg, Curiosity: Did God create the universe?, November 12, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/curiosity-did-god-create-the-universe, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[v] M theory: what does it stand for? – Parallel Universes, Horizon, February 14, 2002, BBC Science, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUh_eMtnFg, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

Modern Physics – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Sir Isaac Newton

Godfrey Kneller’s 1689 portrait of Isaac Newton (age 46) – Wikipedia

Modern Physics is the extension of previous levels of physics and is therefore the study of the fundamental and “weird” interactions that occur in our universe. Sir Isaac Newton really founded the study of physics by his understanding of gravity and forces (now called Newtonian or Classical Physics) and since then, modern physics has taken our understanding to a whole new level.

Quantum Mechanics was developed based on the research of atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics gets its name from the discovery that energy within atoms is quantized, meaning that the smallest amounts of energy come in small packets or quanta (like integers – only 1, 2, 3, etc), rather than any variable amount of energy (like 2.63 or 5.41 or anywhere in between). Initial research was based on blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic nature of elements. There are now “several classes of phenomena called ‘quantum effects.’” Some of the conclusions from the new physics can breach on the weird and paradoxical, as we shall see.

In Quantum Mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at any given time, you simply cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron. You can know only one, or the other, at any given time and therefore you will not be able to tell where it will be later. The Wave-Particle Duality says that light and electrons act as both a wave and a particle, which seems contradictory and very mysterious. Because particles can have wave properties, quantum tunneling (a particle can instantaneously jump across a solid barrier) is thought to be possible. This phenomenon is theorized to be part of brain activity.[i] Quantum Entanglement is possible in that two or more particles can be in the same quantum state and then, even when separated by a great distance, when one of the particles is acted on, the other(s) is simultaneously affected. Because of Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation may be possible by acting on one of the entangled particles, which will then cause a reaction of the other entangled particle and thus we may be able to send information, or particles, with potentially “faster than light communication methods.” This means that you could change something locally and instantly affect the universe some distance away without any time needed for the information to travel that distance.[ii]

Two quantum effects are observable on the macroscopic scale with superconductors and superfluids. Superconductors can be created, at the right temperature, to cause the material to have no electrical resistance and therefore able to magnetically levitate. Also, if again we are at the right temperature, superfluids will have no viscosity.[iii]

If none of that seems weird to you yet, consider the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics… the Copenhagen Interpretation.  This interpretation suggests that particles exist in all of the possible quantum states, but when the particle is observed, then the quantum wave function collapses, meaning that you only end up seeing the particle in one state rather than all the states that it may have actually been in before…at the same time. Another interpretation is the Consistent History interpretation in that quantum mechanics only gives the probabilities of the possible histories.[iv] “Quantum mechanics says that we cannot tell for certain what property value will emerge when we take the measurement – all we can ever say is that the value will be a random choice from a selection of possible values.” “It’s as if the measurement process actually creates the property value.”[v] “The very act of observing will cause the phenomenon being observed to change—thus the term observer effect.”[vi] The famous example of this is the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment where either the cat is alive in a box or dead in a box and the theory seems to say that maybe it is both at the same time, until you open the box to observe the one real truth. “Ultimately the only thing that matters are the experimental results”[vii] that are observed.

Scientists are hopeful to use the properties of Quantum Mechanics to create Quantum computers. These will, for all intents and purposes, be able to compute practically every possible scenario simultaneously. There is currently a lot of controversy and challenges to this technology, but many expect this technology to be the way of the future.[viii]

There is evidence that quantum tunneling is a component of our sense of smell, and quantum entanglement may play a part in bird migration and navigation. “Also, supposedly primitive purple bacteria exploit quantum mechanics to make their photosynthesis 95% efficient. They use a complex of tiny antennae to harvest light, but this complex can be distorted which could harm efficiency. However, because of the wave and particle nature of light and matter, although it absorbs a single photon at a time, the wave nature means that the photon is briefly everywhere in the antenna complex at once. Then of all possible pathways, it is absorbed in the most efficient manner, regardless of any shape changes in the complex. As with the previous example, quantum coherence is normally observable at extremely low temperatures, but these bacteria manage at ordinary temperatures.”[ix]

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein

Einstein developed his theories of General and Special Relativity to explain that gravity and an objects speed will change the length and mass of an object and the passage of time. With more gravity and more speed, time will slow down.[x]

Particle Physics and Quark Theory have also arisen, which is adding to what we know about the elementary particles. “According to the [Quark] theory, there are six types of quarks. Many particles, such as protons and neutrons, consist of the combination of two quarks. The different combinations of quarks lead to different particles…In recent years, particle physicists have in similar fashion developed string theory. Physicists have noticed that certain patterns among elementary particles can be explained easily if particles behave as tiny vibrating strings…As theoretical physicists refine their theories and we build new, powerful particle accelerators, physicists expect that one day we can test whether string theory is true, but for now there is no experimental evidence for string theory… Currently, most physicists think that string theory is a very promising idea. Assuming that string theory is true, there still remains the question as to which particular version of string theory is the correct one. You see, string theory is not a single theory but instead is a broad outline of a number of possible theories. Once we confirm string theory, we can constrain which version properly describes our world. If true, string theory could lead to new technologies.”[xi] But some think that “string theory has many problems”[xii] so it remains to be seen if this theory will hold out or be replaced as more tests are completed.

Modern physicists are currently working on combining the different theories of modern physics into one unified Theory of Everything (TOE). “Consequently, resolving the inconsistencies between both theories [relativity and quantum physics] has been a major goal of 20th and 21st century physics. Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored for many years in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything. This TOE would combine not only the different models of subatomic physics, but also derive the four fundamental forces of nature – the strong force, electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity – from a single force or phenomenon. While Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, he has concluded that one is not obtainable.”[xiii] Other researchers are still hopeful to unlock the ultimate Theory of Everything.

Do we really understand Modern Physics? What do we really know for sure? How will our understanding of physics change in the future? Does physics tell us anything about God?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Einstein’s theories of relativity show that around black holes, time will be slower the closer one gets, until, within the black hole, time would actually stop, or rather, would not exist. Stephen Hawking explains how this would be true and that there was no time “before” the big bang. Hawking also describes how in quantum physics, particles can “pop” into existence from nowhere and therefore there is no problem with the idea that an entire universe explodes from nothing, out of nowhere. It is even possible that the universe is uncaused, because there is no time for a something or some creator to cause the universe. Therefore, there is no need to say that any creator caused the universe.[xiv]

Living organisms appear to have evolved to use quantum mechanical advantages within nature. “In artificial systems, quantum superposition and entanglement typically decay rapidly unless cryogenic temperatures are used. Could life have evolved to exploit such delicate phenomena? Certain migratory birds have the ability to sense very subtle variations in Earth’s magnetic field. Here we apply quantum information theory and the widely accepted “radical pair” model to analyze recent experimental observations of the avian compass. We find that superposition and entanglement are sustained in this living system for at least tens of microseconds, exceeding the durations achieved in the best comparable man-made molecular systems. This conclusion is starkly at variance with the view that life is too “warm and wet” for such quantum phenomena to endure.”[xv]

As scientists continue the study and understanding of modern physics, there will be better explanations for everything and therefore completely overwhelm the need that many people have to resort to God or any sort of gods as the original cause. Naturalistic processes can explain everything, even the origin of the universe. Part of the excitement is the mystery in the things that we don’t know and understand yet, and that is what makes the process of science so great. The god of lightning, the sun god, the moon god, the rain god and multitudes of other gods have been successfully dethroned. Based on this, there is an extremely high probability that there is no need for any other god, not one. It would be foolish to resort to believing in a magical god just because some questions and mysteries are still unanswered.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

[i] Friedrich Beck, Synaptic Quantum Tunnelling in Brain Activity, NeuroQuantology, June 2008, Vol 6, Issue 2, p. 140-151, http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168/168, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, Markus Aspelmeyer, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Michael Lindenthal, Philip Walther, Anton Zeilinger, Brief Communications, Communications: Quantum teleportation across the Danube, August 19, 2004, Nature 430, 849, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/430849a.html, accessed July 21, 2014.

[iii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Luke Mastin, Quanta and Wave-Particle Duality, 2009, Main Topics: Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle, The Physics of the Universe, http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_quanta.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[v] Andrew Thomas, The Quantum Casino, http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_quantum_casino.asp, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vii] Interpretations of Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://gscim.com/phy/Quantum_Mechanics/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Nicola Jones, Computing: The quantum company, D-Wave is pioneering a novel way of making quantum computers – but it is also courting controversy, June 19, 2013, Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/computing-the-quantum-company-1.13212, accessed July 21, 2014.

[ix] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[x] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xi] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiii] Quantum mechanics, Wikipedia, last modified July 14, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Stephen Hawking, “Gödel and the end of physics,” last modified November 23, 2011, Strings 2002, Cambridge, July 15-20, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiv] Did God Create The Universe?, August 7, 2011, Curiosity, Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/did-god-create-the-universe.htm, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xv] Gauger, E.M. et al., Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass, Physical Rev. Lett. 106: 040503, 2011 P-I-P-E doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040503.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

According to the National Geomagnetic Initiative, “the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unresolved problems in geosciences.”[i] “Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”[ii]

Earth's Interior“What a planet needs in order to produce a strong magnetic field is (1) a liquid conducting (metallic) interior and (2) rapid rotation to get the conducting material moving about.”[iii] The magnetic field is based on the amount of the liquid swirling within the earth. The faster the moving currents, the stronger the magnetic field would be. “If the liquid interior becomes solid or if the rotation slows down, the magnetic field will weaken.”[iv] Over time, the earth, like most things, has been cooling and its rotation slowing so the magnetic field is expected to weaken.

Naturalism needs a way for magnetic fields to continually recharge, and this they call the Dynamo effect. “Currents create a magnetic field–a distribution of magnetic forces–and the essence of the self-sustaining dynamo problem is to find solutions such that the resulting magnetic field is also the input field required for generating the current in the first place…Actually, that is only the lowest level of the problem, in which one is free to prescribe the motions. To solve the full problem, we also need information about the heat sources, and these sources must be able to drive motions which also solve the dynamo problem.”[v]

“Scientists are still not sure about what provides the heat in the Earth’s core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth’s crust.” [vi] “Such problems are not easy. They involve intricate mathematics and are not yet fully solved.” [vii] “Evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field.”[viii]

The Earth’s magnetic field must have been much stronger in the past, and in fact it has weakened, at a minimum, of about 7% since the first recordings in 1827. By knowing the intensity, one can calculate the amount of electrical energy as well. Based on the Dynamic Decay theory, which is a creation model of the magnetic fields, the intensity and energy are both noticeably going down and it fits with both a young earth and global flood model.[ix]

“Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists…the data show that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today…Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.” [x] Therefore, there is no way that these fields were formed billions of years ago; if it were a normal strength billions of years ago, it would be really weak or essentially gone today. “The maximum age for the Earth’s magnetic field: about 20,000 Years.”[xi] “But even in this extreme case, the maximum age would still be only about 100,000 years, far short of the billions of years evolution needs.”[xii]

“Paleomagnetism is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data shows that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth’s magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity,”[xiii] the once prevailing Creationist theory. Creation Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys “suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth’s core could produce rapid reversals of the field during [“most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two.”[xiv]] and after the Genesis flood. The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth’s surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.”[xv] For this theory, he “showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.”[xvi]

“Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks [around the time of the flood]. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.”[xvii]

To allow for a dynamo causing a long-lasting magnetic field, the core needs to be liquid. Mercury still has a magnetic field, but “Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet should have frozen solid eons ago.”[xviii] In fact, in a recent mission to Mercury, “Messenger found that Mercury’s field strength had fallen by almost eight percent since its last measurement 36 years earlier. This works out to a half-life of about 320 years. In other words, Mercury loses half its magnetic field strength every 300 years or so. This is an astonishingly quick rate for an entire planet. It’s also very close to the predictions of Dr. Humphrey’s Bible-based model for Mercury. On the other hand, it thoroughly contradicts secular expectations. With a half-life of 320 years, Mercury’s field should have been completely gone billions of years ago – if Mercury were actually billions of years old.”[xix]

Ganymede - moon

Ganymede

Naturalistic models say that Ganymede can’t have a magnetic field…but it does. Saturn’s “magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary predictions at all.” Creation models fit the evidence better and based on his models, Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, which are very abnormal in that the magnetic fields “are strongly offset from their rotation axis. This discovery was contrary to evolutionary predictions, but is consistent with creation.”[xx] Naturalists still can’t explain “‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month…[and] it never had a molten core.”[xxi] The sun’s magnetic field reverses every 11 years, “but its ultimate causes remain mysterious.”[xxii]

Naturalistic scientists “continually adjust various magnetic dynamo theories, but none yet proposed have succeeded in theoretically upholding the magnetic field strength over the billions of years since the planets supposedly formed.”[xxiii] The naturalistic dynamo “model contradicts some basic laws of physics. Furthermore, their model fails to explain the modern, measured electric current in the seafloor. Nor can it explain the past field reversals, computer simulations notwithstanding.”[xxiv] “Evolution’s long-age dynamo model fails to match the data. In contrast, a quickly decaying, rapidly fluctuating magnetic field fits the free decay model and an age for earth of only thousands of years.”[xxv]

 

 

What the Bible Says: Psalms 91, Proverbs 3:5

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] U.S. Geodynamics Committee, National Research Council, The National Geomagnetic Initiative, 1993, The National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2238 or http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2238&page=1, accessed June 30, 2014, page 3.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[ii] S.R. Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, pp. 163-164.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[iii] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[iv] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[v] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vi] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vii] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[viii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[ix] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[x] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiv] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xv] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvi] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvii] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292–298, April 1989. See also the reports by Dr Andrew Snelling, Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation 13(3):46–50, 1991 The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth, Creation 13(4):44–48, 1991.

R.S. Coe, M. Prévot and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374(6564):687–692, 1995; see also A. Snelling, The principle of ‘least astonishment’, Journal of Creation 9(2):138–139, 1995.

[xviii] S.R.Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, p. 163.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xix] Spike Psarris, Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists, Alpha Omega Insistute and CreationAstronomy.com, http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/MercuryNewDiscoveriesDelightCreationists.htm, accessed June 30, 2014.

Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[xx] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xxi] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

Irene Antonenko, New Insights into the Moon’s Mysterious Magnetic Field, January 30, 2012, Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/93118/new-insights-into-the-moons-mysterious-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

[xxii] Mike Wall, Sun’s Magnetic Field Reversal Still A Scientific Mystery, August 13, 2013, The Huffington Post, Space.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/sun-magnetic-field-reversal-scientific-mystery_n_3748515.html, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiii] Brian Thomas, Saturn’s Magnetic Field Auroras: Evidence for Creation, June 4, 2014, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/8175/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiv] Andrew Snelling, #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

  1. J. Lanzerotti, et al., “Measurements of the Large-Scale Direct-Current Earth Potential and Possible Implications for the Geomagnetic Dynamo,” Science 229, no. 4708 (1985): 47–49.
  2. Russell Humphreys, “Can Evolutionists Now Explain the Earth’s Magnetic Field?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1996): 184–185.

[xxv] Brian Thomas, Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model, December 28, 2010, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/magnetic-field-data-confirm-creation/, accessed July 22, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Magnetic Fields

Introduction:

The earth and many other planets, and even the sun, currently retain very strong magnetic fields. Over time those magnetic fields should have weakened. Is there a phenomenon that can recharge dying magnetic fields? How are these magnetic fields formed? Are magnetic fields formed naturally or designed by God for our protection? How do the magnetic fields really affect earth? What does the evidence tell us about the age of the earth and the universe?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and its magnetic field is due to the movement of charged metals within the earth’s liquid outer core. This moving of charged metals will always form a magnetic field around them naturally. The earth formed with swirling currents of hot, molten rock, which simultaneously created magnetic fields associated with the swirling mass. So the earth has always had a strong magnetic field, and for that matter, magnetic fields have probably formed around most, if not all, other astronomical objects as well. The human body even has a slight magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has a positive impact on this planet as it shields harmful solar and celestial radiation from entering our atmosphere.

Over earth’s history, the chaotic currents are like a “dynamo” inside the earth, which is always moving and causing the magnetic field to change constantly and these “magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another.” From ocean sediment cores and surveys and the fossil record, magnetic fields are recorded in the rocks and specifically show that the poles even occasionally flip, making the north pole the south pole and then back again. This pole reversal happens “about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal.” “Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years,” and each reversal may take a few thousand years. Fortunately, these pole reversals don’t appear to cause environmental problems or exposure to harmful radiation , since there still is a magnetic field, it is just changing.[i]

The earth’s magnetic field has actually weakened by 10% since the 19th century, but University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier says that “the field is increasing or decreasing all the time.” “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” He also explains that that 10% is a relatively small amount of change and that “Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal…twice (as much as) the million-year average.”[ii]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] 2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time, November 30, 2011, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html, accessed November 1, 2013.

[ii] Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field, December 29, 2003, NASA Science, Science News, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/, accessed November 1, 2013.

 

The Big Bang Theory – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Naturalists say that the universe is billions of years old, based on current observations, but this is again based on their assumptions of the current data. Creationists say that current observations show that the universe could not be billions of years old and the Bible, God’s historical record, describes the creation account only several thousand years ago. There are many things that point to a young universe, such as: the existence of comets, magnetic field strengths, rotations and revolutions of planetary bodies (and many of their moons), and the compositions and structures of stars, planets and galaxies.

HotStarThe Big Bang Theory, attempting to describe the universe’s initial catastrophic event, is very complex, but still leaves a lot of questions that have to be answered. Mathematicians and Physicists are still trying to work out how (and why) the universe came from nothing, proceeded to be everything in an infinitesimally small point and then eventually expanded to what it is today. They have much to try to explain, but it still won’t be able to answer questions about the naturalistic processes of the universe before the Big Bang (much of the how and why). Just because a theory has a lot to still explain doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, but is their hypothesis the best explanation of the observations? Naturalists would say “yes,” because they will not accept any supernatural explanation and will therefore throw out all creation viewpoints.

The Big Bang Theory has been plagued with many problems, including – missing magnetic monopoles, the flatness problem, missing Population III stars, and many, many more.[i] “With all the problems…it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.’”[ii]

Scientists have also struggled with the problem of missing antimatter. “Physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been created in the proposed ‘big bang.’ Therefore missing antimatter in the universe should challenge the ‘big bang’ theory, an implication none of the authors apparently is willing to entertain.”[iii]

In the Big Bang model, the universe should be spread out evenly, which studies of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) show that it is, but it is spread out too evenly as further observations are confirming. There should be evidence that there are fluctuations in the early universe that would cause large clusters of galaxies and stars to form. So to overcome this challenge, big bang theorists had to propose the inflation theory, stating that shortly after the big bang different parts of the universe expanded, or inflated, even faster to create clumping and allow star formation to occur. What causes the differences in inflation is unknown, but some suggest that it may be quantum fluctuations, or interference from other universes or dimensions, or possibly a phase change in the universe as it was cooling. “In short, the inflation and phase change theories constructed to explain cosmic structure via the big bang are themselves unverifiable speculation. Indeed, inflation resulted in ‘increasingly complicated’ models, which ‘[came] nowhere close to providing us with an understanding of the large-scale homogeneity of the universe’.”[iv] “Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself.”[v]

One researcher complained, “‘The Big Bang theory … fails to tell us how galaxies, stars and planets formed: If the universe began as a homogeneous soup, why did it not stay so forever?’ Finally, there were ‘widespread reports of the death of the Big Bang [but] Big Bang proponents responded with new ad hoc hypotheses’ to save the theory.”[vi]

Big Bang theorists suggest that dark matter has a role in the early formation of the universe, but “dark matter is supposed to emit no light or other electromagnetic radiation, so would be invisible, but this means that ‘its existence must remain an article of faith for the true believer in the standard model’.” Because of “galaxy clusters…the largest observable scales in the universe: the cosmos appears incorrigibly ‘lumpy’…dark matter does not really explain how this ‘lumpiness’ developed” from so little fluctuations in the CBR.[vii]

“Theorists … invented the concepts of inflation and cold dark matter to augment the big bang paradigm and keep it viable, but they, too, have come into increasing conflict with observations. In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously.”[viii]

So, what caused the universe to explode or expand? Physicist Alan Guth says that “in spite of the fact that we call it the big bang theory, it really says absolutely nothing about the big bang. It doesn’t tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn’t even describe—it doesn’t really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this big bang.”[ix]

Consider the philosophy and praise given by physicist Paul Davies, as he says, “yet the laws [of physics] that permit a Universe to create itself are even more impressive than a cosmic magician. If there is a meaning or purpose beneath physical existence, then it is to those laws rather than to the big bang that we should direct our attention.”[x] This is quite similar to Romans 1:25 where it says, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

“Modern big bang theory is an attempt to describe the universe without the Creator…It is not science in the usual repeatable laboratory experimental sense and it is very weak as one can never be certain one’s model actually describes reality. This is story-telling at its best.”[xi]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[ii] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

  1. Lerner et al., An open letter to the scientific community, New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004.

[iii] Michael Oard, Missing antimatter challenges the ‘big bang’ theory, December 1998, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 12(3):256, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Earman, J. and Mosterin, J., A critical look at inflationary cosmology, Philosophy of Science 66:1–49, 1999; p. 1.

Penrose, R., Difficulties with inflationary cosmology, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 571:249–264, 1989; p. 249.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[v] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vi] Ferris, T., The Red Limit, Quill, New York, p. 66, 1983.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[vii] Sandage, A., Observational tests of world models, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 26:561–630, 1988; p. 623.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[viii] Oldershaw, R., What’s wrong with the new physics? New Scientist 127(1748):56–59, 1990; p. 59.

As quoted in: Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ix] Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT, “Before, Meanwhile and After the BIG BANG—(M-Theory)”, youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug, 11 September 2007.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[x] Davies, P., Is the Universe a free lunch?, 3 March 1996; independent.co.uk.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

The Big Bang Theory – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Based on current observations, the universe is expanding. “If we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, not the size of a basketball, not the size of a golf ball, not even the size of a pinhead, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (i.e., no space, no time, and no matter). In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something – the entire universe exploded into being! This, of course, is what is commonly called ‘the Big Bang.’”[i]

What was before this big bang? What caused the big bang to happen? What was the early universe really like as it was exploding outward? Are there problems with the big bang theory? Is there a better explanation for what has been observed? Does the big bang solve as many problems as it creates?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered, among other things, that galaxies were moving away from us.  Consequently, it seemed reasonable that everything must have started in one place, later called the singularity. This is the basis for the Big Bang theory.[ii]

The Big Bang actually wasn’t an explosion but instead was simply an expansion. “Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.”[iii]

One second after the bang, there would have been “a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos.”[iv] Those elements would continue to separate (as the balloon expanded) and yet combine to form hydrogen and other basic elementary particles. As the early universe expanded and cooled, it left its mark as it spread out, which is observed today as the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). The CBR is evidence we can observe today for the big bang.[v] Scientists can map the CBR and determine where the hot or cold spots are, at different points, and how those spots will show where clusters and galaxies will form.

The universe not only expanded in a big bang, but possibly different parts of the universe grew, or inflated, at different rates. This is suggested due to the fact that the CBR shows the overall temperature of the universe is too constant, and therefore, hot and cold spots would have had “bursts of expansion called “inflation”” to be able to reach each other and combine.[vi] The inflation theory helps solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem, although it does cause some new ones.[vii]

What was before the Big Bang? Scientists can only offer hypotheses with, unfortunately, little ability to test. It is suggested that the universe came from nothing. “The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.”[viii]

Big Bang Diagram - Wikipedia

This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. CMB Timeline300 no WMAP – Public Domain

Some say that the idea of the universe coming from nothing “clashes with common sense.” It is therefore suggested that the Universe has always existed and continually goes through cycles of expansion and crunching. It has also been suggested that a previous universe caused the inflation of this universe – like a bubble producing another bubble. Thus our universe is “one of countless bubbles floating around within the “multiverse,”” which is eternally evolving.[ix] The Big Bang may have been caused by the mysterious workings of quantum mechanics, in that, particles can pop into existence out of nowhere and then even disappear.[x]

Scientists are currently unsure “whether the Universe will expand forever” – and cause a heat death with temperatures slowly approaching absolute zero, “or whether it will someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a “Big Crunch.”[xi] Scientists expected that the gravity of the matter of the universe would slow the expansion of the universe, but it is not slowing down, instead it seems to be accelerating. So scientists theorize that there is some energy, Dark Energy, pulling the universe away from itself.

There are many questions, and “little is known about the earliest moments of the universe’s history,” but as more data comes in, more answers should be available. “While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future.”[xii]

The origin of the laws of science itself raise “some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it…But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.””[xiii]

Ultimately the Big Bang is a naturalistic way to understand our universe and therefore there is no need to invoke a creator.[xiv]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

[i] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2004, p. 79.

[ii] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[iii] Big Bang Theory – An Overview, All About Science, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[iv] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[v] Tests of Big Bang: The CMB, last updated June 24, 2011, NASA, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html, accessed November 5, 2013.

[vi] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[vii] Roger Penrose, Difficulties with inflationary cosmology, NASA, NSF, Texas Academy of Science, et al., Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, 14th, Dallas, TX, Dec. 11-16, 1988 New York Academy of Sciences, Annals(ISSN 0077-8923), vol. 571, 1989, p. 249-264., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989NYASA.571..249P, accessed November 5, 2013.

Sean Carroll, Cosmic Variance: The Eternally Existing, Self-Reproducing, Frequently Puzzling Inflationary Universe, October 21, 2011, Discover Magazine Blog, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/21/the-eternally-existing-self-reproducing-frequently-puzzling-inflationary-universe/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[viii] Big Bang Theory – An Overview, All About Science, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[ix] Steve Nadis, What Came Before the Big Bang? October 10, 2013, Discover Magazine, http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point, accessed November 5, 2013.

[x] Did God Create The Universe?, August 7, 2011, Curiosity, Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/did-god-create-the-universe.htm, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xi] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xii] Physical Definition of Time, The Anderson Institute, http://www.andersoninstitute.com/physical-definition-of-time.htm, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xiii] Steve Nadis, What Came Before the Big Bang? October 10, 2013, Discover Magazine, http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xiv] Tom Frame, Losing my religion, 2009, UNSW Press, p. 137-141.

Stephen Hawking, quoting Carl Sagan, in the introduction to A Brief History in Time, 1988, p. X.

Blindsided by Grace

 

I love surprises. In fact, one of the things I love about my husband is his enthusiasm for staging a good surprise. But lately I’ve been contemplating the idea that maybe there are some surprises that I should be “outgrowing.”

How does the concept of surprise figure into growing spiritual maturity? Often I am astounded at the grace of God, mercifully protecting, teaching and blessing me beyond my wildest expectations. I could, in fact, say that His grace comes by complete surprise. But is that a biblical view? Should I find myself astounded when I see God mercifully providing, from divinely orchestrating the circumstances of my son’s birth to blessing us with the gift of an abundant supply of baby clothes to outfit his first year of life?

hMy God does not work in ways that are predictable. I can’t expect that He will always act in the same way, or that He will always do things the way I want them done. But so often, I find myself being, I think, far too surprised by His provision. Hasn’t He said He will supply all our needs? (Phil 4:19) Isn’t He our shield and protector? (Ps. 18:2)

Blindsided by Grace. The phrase came to me one day, not too long ago, as I contemplated the mercies of my God, thinking how often I am astonished to see how He works. As I mulled over the idea (it has such a holy ring to it, don’t you think?), I began to wonder if being able to be caught off guard by the mercies of God is really what He is calling us to. Does that fit with the words of the Psalmist, who says:

“I wait for the Lord, my soul does wait, and in His word do I hope. My soul waits for the Lord more than the watchmen for the morning; Indeed, more than the watchmen for the morning.” (Ps. 130:5-6)

If I am waiting on the Lord like a watchman, I will undoubtedly still be surprised at the ways in which the everlasting, unchanging, infinite God chooses to work. After all, He, to borrow from C.S. Lewis’ vivid illustration, is “not a tame” God, and as His child I look forward to an eternity of surprises. But If I am waiting on Him, expectantly watching for Him to work, I don’t think that I will be completely blindsided by the fact that He is working!

So that is my challenge to myself, in a life fraught with uncertainty, and constant temptation to live in fear: Wait on the Lord. I desire now to be living on the edge of my seat, eagerly, expectantly, breathlessly waiting and watching – what will my God think of next? I have to think that this posture of watching will, by the working of His Spirit, help me to recognize when God’s grace takes shape in ways I do not expect. The presence of pain, sorrow, and difficulty don’t indicate His absence, but perhaps will call for an even more intense need to be aware of His presence.

My prayer is that I will be so aware and watchful of God working, that the very fact that He surprises me will be a surprise in and of itself!

 

Aimee Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.