Creation vs Evolution – J.R. Cooper

Earth’s Magnetic Core; Limiting Factor

If you have never heard of the Dynamo Theory, another of secular science’s fudge factors, like dark matter, the inflaton, punctuated equilibrium, the Ort Cloud, and others…. then you may be interested in examining how it is that a measurably degrading magnetic core could have sustained life for hundreds of millions of years. Let me explain.

The earth’s magnetic core is getting weaker. This of course means that in the past it was stronger. By some measurements, it is determined that the magnetic core is 40% less strong than it was 1000 years ago. Measurements vary, and different areas degrade at different rates, but if today’s decay rate were projected backwards, the core would be implausibly strong in tens of thousands of years. Like catch the atmosphere on fire strong. All life on the planet gone strong. This means that for a Young Earth Creationist, we can once again make scientific observations that square with the truth of scripture quite easily. But of course the materialist, the evolutionist, those who demand deep time, and slow gradual random processes over billions of years, will have to appeal to some mechanism that forces the magnetic core to stay within a cosmically tight tolerance in order to not become deadly. Welcome to the Dynamo Theory.

As was ignored regarding Pluto, comets, and other celestial bodies, the obvious ignoring of thermodynamic laws must be applied here, as scientists propose the magnetic core conveniently goes through stages of magnetic powering up, not too powered up though, and at the specific times it is needed. The basic idea is:

Heat escapes from Earth’s core.
Molten iron circulates.
Because iron conducts electricity and the Earth rotates, electrical currents are produced, and those currents regenerate the magnetic field.

In their model, the field is not a battery slowly running down but a self-sustaining system that can strengthen, weaken, and even reverse. This same mechanism is applied out of necessity to Jupiter and Mercury as well. Computer simulations are adjusted to make the tolerances work for life, and the plausibility is accepted across academia since it must be so!

The greater difficulty, even if the recharging of a magnetic core is possible, is the heavier burden of this process allegedly operating for 3.8 billion years while remaining compatible with life the entire time without a single mistake! Through this constant supposed ebbing and flowing through time, the core by natural unguided means, must avoid prolonged states of weakness which would allow solar wind and radiation to destroy the atmosphere. And though we have never observed it getting stronger (other than normal flux), we must assume that it always obeyed upper limits of magnetic strength that would have set the world on fire, again, by luck, random chance, and randomly sitting in the perfect pocket for millions of years.

Remember, it has changed by 40% in 1000 years. How many years based on 40% being lost in 1000 years, could we safely go back in time before the magnetism got too strong for life? There is a record of pole reversals that align with the flood, and catastrophic results of that event, but under normal consistent observation, the core is behaving exactly as we would expect, and slowly losing power.

If we use the stated premise literally — 40% loss per 1,000 years — then running the field backward means multiplying its strength by: 0.61=1.667

every 1,000 years.

So the backward-growth formula is: B(t)=B0(1.667)t/1000

One key problem is that there is no universally agreed single magnetic-field strength at which “all life dies,” so I cannot give you one scientifically established cutoff year. But we can calculate how quickly the field becomes dramatically stronger than today’s:

Years back	Approx. field strength vs. today
1,357	2×
3,151	5×
4,508	10×
5,865	20×
7,658	50×
9,015	100×
13,523	1,000×
18,030	10,000×
27,046	1,000,000×

If you choose even a very generous hypothetical tolerance of 100 times today’s field, you’ve only gotten about 9,000 years into the past. At 1,000 times, you’re only at about 13,500 years.

So with even a conservative instinct of something like 15,000–25,000 years as the region where straight backward extrapolation becomes physically absurd, by then you’re dealing with fields thousands to hundreds of thousands of times stronger than today. So the clean conclusion is: At a 40%-per-millennium decay rate, a simple backward extrapolation becomes extraordinarily problematic within roughly ten to twenty thousand years—not millions or billions.

But I want to keep one guardrail firmly in place: this calculation only attacks a monotonic-decay model. The standard geodynamo response is precisely that the field does not follow this exponential trend backward indefinitely.

But where the broader argument becomes interesting is different: if the dynamo is invoked to prevent those absurd historical strengths, then the burden shifts to showing that its long-term fluctuations stayed within whatever the genuinely habitable limits are; i.e. a habitable zone defined by an ebb or flow period of only 10,000 years long.

So a scientific question might be:

Across 3.8 billion years of modeled fluctuations, what is the probability that the field never leaves that safe range long enough to sterilize the planet or permanently derail complex life?

And that, as we discussed, is the probability question for which we currently do not have a well-established numerical answer.

This “Chaotic Cycle” does not mean that every conceivable field strength is equally likely. A hurricane is chaotic, but it does not randomly become hotter than the Sun. The governing equations and available energy constrain its possible states. But it is not unreasonable to imagine that when dealing with small tolerances for life, and powerful cosmic forces, magnetic force with no intelligent control could easily surpass safe levels in either direction.

Using a hypothetical 10,000-year tolerance window: 10,000/3,800,000,000=380,000

So that’s 380,000 consecutive 10,000-year windows across 3.8 billion years of life leading to humans (from goo to the zoo to you; i.e. what they teach your kids in school).

Each 10,000 year interval becomes 0.000263% of proposed life history.

One important mathematical distinction: that does not itself mean “380,000 perfect dynamo cycles,” because we haven’t established that the dynamo cycles every 10,000 years. What we are calculating is 380,000 hypothetical tolerance intervals.

But the probability question becomes sharper: if a lethal magnetic excursion had some probability (p) during any 10,000-year interval, what is the probability Earth survives all 380,000 intervals without a single terminal excursion?

Under the simplified assumption that each interval were independent: P(survival)=(1−p)380,000

That gets brutal remarkably quickly. Even a lethal-event probability of only 1 in 100,000 per interval gives: (0.99999)380,000≈2.24%

So under that illustrative model, even a 99.999% safe 10,000-year interval yields only about a 2.2% chance of making it through all 3.8 billion years.

For Earth to retain even a 50/50 chance of surviving all 3.8 billion years under this simplified model, the probability of a sterilizing magnetic failure during any individual 10,000-year interval could be no greater than approximately 0.0001824%—about one chance in 548,000 per interval. And it would have to maintain that extraordinary reliability through all 380,000 hypothetical tolerance windows.

380,000 tolerance windows, with effectively no room for a single sterilizing failure.

The wider the modeled variation compared with the habitable window, the less plausible the model becomes. And if the system is genuinely chaotic, one cannot simply point to its present survivability and call the problem solved. That risks reasoning backward from the desired outcome: life exists, therefore every prior excursion must somehow have been survivable.

A proposed mechanism is not yet a demonstrated history. Saying “the dynamo regenerates the field” does not answer:

how strong or weak it can become,
how long dangerous excursions can last,
what the biological and atmospheric limits are,
or why those limits were allegedly never exceeded catastrophically over immense time.

I would still distinguish “this looks profoundly implausible” from “mathematically disproven,” because the latter requires numbers we do not possess. But common sense is not worthless simply because a complete probability distribution is unavailable. Common sense often identifies where a theory carries an enormous hidden burden.

Moreover, Earth’s habitability depends on a coupled systems: magnetic field, atmosphere, solar behavior, gravity, mantle evolution, plate tectonics and lunar influences, etc. This is one large habitation problem in a series of large habitation problems. But specific to our necessary and amazing magnetic core, we either must attribute perfectly self-sustaining mechanisms applied over billions of years without a single mistake to natural cosmic processes, or admit that our fragile window of existence is held firm by the author of life.

The stability and order of creation ultimately must rest upon God rather than autonomous natural processes:

Psalm 75:3 (ESV) “When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars.”

1 Samuel 2:8 (ESV): “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”

Psalm 104:5 (ESV): “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.”

And Colossians 1:16–17 takes the concept beyond the Earth to the entire created order: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

And Hebrews 1:3 says of Christ: “He upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

What if We Destroy all Religious Books? – Ricky Gervais

“If you took all the works of fiction and holy books and destroyed them, in a 1000 years they would still be gone. But if you took all the works of science, in a 1000 years they would have all come back. Because all the tests would bear the same results.”

Ricky Gervais is a popular, frankly hilarious, and talented actor and comedian. Whether you like his particular brand of non-pc humor, you cannot deny his success, bravery, and wit. Personally I like most of his stuff, other than the poignantly anti-Christian stuff, but as a person who appreciates free speech, and a free market, I support his rights to speak on whichever topics in whatever way works for him.

I bring Mr. Gervais up today, on my little blog, to verbalize a thoughtful retort to one of his famous challenges against religion: “If you took all the works of fiction and holy books and destroyed them, in a 1000 years they would still be gone. But if you took all the works of science, in a 1000 years they would have all come back. Because all the tests would bear the same results.”

He has stated this multiple times in interviews, and remains one of the funniest and most likeable atheists, but upon hearing this over and over for years, I felt compelled to provide contrary ammunition for the Christian who may not know how to respond. The assertion itself is faulty, and as is usually the case with atheists, they paint themselves as logical, reasonable believers in empirical data and truth alone, while the religious appeal to unprovable magic and miracles.

I have explained the difference between empirical and historical or forensic sciences before, but a quick recap of how we must interpret data.

The Eiffel tower has testable attributes. Some of these are:

1,063 ft tall
Wrought Iron Lattice Tower
Weight is 10,100 tons
Located on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France

If one were inclined, one could test and re-test for the accuracy of any of these statements. In Mr. Gervais’ example, yes, if these facts were all lost, they could all be recovered again, and restated in books as demonstrable, observable, repeatable, without any deviation, just like the boiling point of water. But what about these facts?

The Engineer was Gustave Eiffel-
The Tower was finished in 1889-

How do we know these are correct? If this information was lost, what would the tower be called? What date would be attributed. We might try to date the metal based on rust, and chemical tests, get some some spectrum of years with a tolerance between 1715 and 1940. If we do not have trusted historical sources to conclude facts from, we would be lost on all lost forensic data! This means that for many disciplines, we must find those historic, written sources, accurate, not tampered with, and found to fit the proper historical context. No one questions these two historical facts today, but it brings about an interesting point. The facts in this case must be believed; they are not testable, and repeatable.

All history is this way, including Biblical history, Cryptology, Archeology, Criminal forensics, Geology, Paleontology, and Cosmology.

So to Mr. Gervais’ assertion, would we indeed have the exact same books with the exact same facts? Yes, the math, experimental physics, chemistry, engineering, all empirical books would be recreated almost exact, and learned the same by Christian and atheist alike.

But what if we look at a couple of presuppositions disappearing, such as evolution, or the Big Bang Theory. Take dark matter as an example. This supposedly bountiful material, made up, and totally untestable, is used as an explanation of how first generation stars were formed in a vacuum of space (still very unclear how that process would work even if this imagined material existed). Dark matter is also needed to explain the gravity keeping spiral arms in tact on a spinning galaxy such as the Milky Way, because when you apply billions of years to it, actual science and math determine that it should have dissipated into a blurry mess by now.

Is it conceivable that if Dark Matter theories were destroyed, and a new people in a thousand years were offered the same exact data points, they might conclude that first generation stars could not have organized themselves naturally, and no mysterious material was aiding the impossible process? Is it conceivable that upon building back up all the lost observable data about the visible universe, and its motion, scientists might have to conclude that the spiral arms can’t be that old, that the clock like precision of the solar system looks designed, and that comets are young? Perhaps these scientists rebuilding all lost scientific knowledge in the future would refrain from invoking make-believe fudge factors to bolster a naturalist point of view. Afterall, that is exactly what the fathers of modern scientists thought when they first began to discover these things! It was obvious to them that a Creator organized the universe! Were they not in the exact same position that Gervais was describing once upon a time? And they concluded that God was a reasonable, and more likely answer!

What about scientists stumbling across the Grand Canyon 1000 years from now, and having to determine a geological cause? Without dedication to presupposition of deep time, a non-empirical belief, they would have to draw conclusions from what they observe, yes? Perhaps these scientists of the future would note data such as:

Middle is higher elevation than the head waters (Kaibab Plateau)

Both sides agree uplift of center occurred before the river was there (water doesn’t run uphill; another great observation for second graders)

Gargantuan river delta that should be present is missing if the 1000 cubic miles of mud and rock were washed away slowly

Stable, shear cliffs, little rock fall – not slow erosion, but washed out

No Talus at base of cliffs – Amphitheaters hundreds of feet of sheer Cliffside over one mile from water, with no debris (washed out)

It is relict – unchanged from what formed it, stable in current condition.

Perhaps without the tainting of modern uniformitarian paradigms, these hypothetical scientists would indeed conclude that this geological feature is quite obviously the result of a massive flood. Slow erosion could not have created it, nor could any river system imaginable, or observable on this earth.

This is only two of MANY examples of how present day scientists interpret facts to explain an observation. Using wisdom, and maturity, Mr. Gervais, and anyone who is touting this clever statement as a dismissal of the religious as illogical, can quickly see that it does not hold water. In fact, many new conclusions would be present, some I’m sure closer to reality, while others would inevitably be even more ridiculous than the Big Bang model, and evolution.

Luckily, all out historic knowledge HASN’T been destroyed, and we do indeed have not only a well-recorded history of when the Eiffel Tower was built, but also of the lineage, prophecies, and narratives of the Jewish nation. We have the religious, moral, and social result of a historic Resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. And we have centuries of Christian and secular writings verifying a long and rich history that helps us interpret and understand the data we find. If not for these histories, all present data and understanding would be so fractured, it would be almost impossible to be certain of anything.

So no, this statement, while it does sound clever initially, has no bearing on Christianity. In fact, the discovery of the organized universe has led many to belief in a Creator God. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” – Rom.1:20

Stegosaurus

Let us consider the Stegosaurus.

This 8 to 10 ton reptile is worth considering as a fascinating piece of biological history, unique and fantastic. With two sets of bone plates extending vertically along the ridge of the backbone, and 4 large tail spikes, it possesses features no other creature has. Aside from how neat the reality of these are, we can also consider the implications in the fossil record.

Of course, evolutionists fully expected that some transitional forms would be found showing the gradual development of plates, and spikes. But like the dismal truth of all specialized creatures in the fossil record, no such transitions exist. After over a century of searching, in every case the animals appear abruptly, and in perfect form. We know this instinctively, of course, and yet are forced to continue considering the unfounded assertion of molecules to man evolution despite no evidence.

The absence of transitional fossils the world over was a problem for Darwin, and continues to be a problem for paleontologists today. But to add to the Stegosaurus observations, we will take a brief look at the magnificent jungle temples of Cambodia, produced by the Khmer civilization. Beginning as early as the eighth and extending through the fourteenth century A.D. one of, if not the greatest monarch and monument builder of this empire was Jayavarman VII, from 1181.

The relief carvings along the temple wall show various animals.

https://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

A monkey, parrot, lizard, water buffalo, swan, and of course this famous picture of the stegosaurus. Is it though?

Well, that would be the obvious conclusion from anyone who knew what a stegosaurus looked like, and happened upon the temple. Clearly this is a large lizard with plates along its back, and clearly there would not be many animals to choose from. Furthermore, none of the relief carvings are made up animals. But the temple was built in the 12th century, we are certainly not allowed to conclude that they actually saw one.

This is one of many ancient examples around the world of dinosaurs being depicted on pottery, tapestries, coffins, and walls all over the globe, all of which must somehow be dismissed and explained away. This one of course is no different, and the Smithsonian takes their shot at it in the 2009 article Stegosaurus, Rhinoceros, or Hoax?

In the article that can only be described as dripping with animosity against creationists, the author asserts that it cannot be a stegosaurus, and is more likely an animal surrounded by leaves, like it is in a jungle. Either that, or it must have been added later as a hoax. And to further back their claim that it MUST be something other than what it looks like, Creationists are described as those who “twist Biblical passages to support their view,” and “distort nature to fit a narrow theological view.” But calling it a bear with leaves, or saying it was carved as a joke with no evidence doesn’t sound like the creationist twisting and distorting to me.

To further back their disparagement of concluding the obvious, they invoke the evolutionary champion, Carl Sagan, and his quote: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” then further claim that evidence of dinosaurs living with man just doesn’t exist. Again I would reiterate that this is just one example of many all over the globe of every dinosaur we have a classification for being depicted in ancient art. But it is certainly ironic that they used Sagan, because the very same late evolutionist, Dr Carl Sagan, famous host of the Cosmos TV series, squarely faced the conundrum that dragon stories/art pose for evolutionists. Namely, that such stories and artifacts are found in cultures all across the globe (the strikingly realistic-looking brass behemoths adorning a 15th century cleric’s tomb in a UK cathedral, Icca stones T-Rex, and others), and that they are amazingly like several types of dinosaurs—which no one is supposed to have seen! Recognizing it quite properly as a puzzle to be solved for long-agers, he wrote a book about it, The Dragons of Eden. In this he proposed that somehow one part of our brain (the one that was inherited from whichever of our alleged reptile ancestors, in the evolutionist scenario, were living at the same time as dinosaurs) had retained its memories of what those ancestors had seen.

Did you catch that? The great Carl Sagan said that the art appears because our brains inherited the memories and images through our DNA through millions and millions of years and countless generations, from when we were just animals living alongside such creatures. So picture it now… as you are carving your wall, and forming a monkey, a parrot, a water buffalo, things you see each day, you add the exact form of one of the most unique animals known to man, with some of the most striking features along its back imaginable, because deep in your mind you were once a reptile that saw one. This passes for science? This evolutionist is held in high esteem while at every turn, the Christian who stands on the foundation of the word of God, and who can easily observe the evidence of its truth throughout nature, is being told that we are twisting and distorting facts?!

No where in the article is there any reasonable allowance whatsoever for the obvious reality, that it is what it looks like. Occam’s Razor, attributed to William of Ockham, is a principle that suggests the simplest explanation is often the correct one. The simplest, and most direct conclusion, based on observation, is that it is what it looks like. And so are the sauropods on the coffin in England. And so are the dinosaurs on the pottery in Peru. And on the Sant Jordi Tapestry, Plaza Sant Jaume, in Spain. And what’s more, Sagan knew this, and knew it so well that he felt compelled to address it. If the Smithsonian was being intellectually honest, it would acknowledge that, and perhaps spend its time coming up with a better explanation than us having the memories of when we were reptiles 60 million years ago, rather than berating Christians for accepting obvious observable data.

Should Creationists Be scared of Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics is an innovative physics field, the math of which is certainly beyond my expertise, and that has merit as a study of how sub-atomic particles behave and interact. But despite physicists’ insistence, specifically those dedicated to evolutionary processes, it concerns operational sciences rather than origins. And what we run into is the lesson told many years ago by Socrates, that the smartest of us often think themselves wisest because of expertise in one subject they deem most important. This is born out in the poor philosophical conclusions of Hawking, and others, in my opinion, and since they were wise in one area, and share a world-view with main stream scientists, their perceived intelligence and respected reputations prevented critical examination of their philosophical conclusions.

So much so that Hawking gets a pass when he says “because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing.” When he makes the truth claim that “free will is an illusion” without realizing he is admitting we have no reason to trust his own truth claims, including that one!

Or how no one bats an eye when Biologist, Richard Dawkins has to remind us to ignore the appearance of design during his never-ending campaign against a designer: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Without evidence of any kind, Dawkins appeals to faith-based occurrences beyond nature while in the same book, (God Delusion) smugly attacking Christians for doing the same: “There are probably ‘superhuman’ alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe.” “There may well be a plethora of universes.”

He is not rebuked for obvious circular reasoning: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us.” Brilliant. (insert eye-roll emoji.)

According to Socrates (and Plato) it is okay to be ignorant, because you can remedy it by learning. What is a dangerous enemy of knowledge is being caught in the illusion of knowledge while in fact being ignorant, because of pride.

In the age of google warriors, and misinformation, it is often those who are smart at one subject who have the strongest opinions about many others, especially that which they don’t know much about. (The fact that atheists and scientists would levy this same charge at me is not lost on me. I am a student of many things, but do certainly attempt to hang my world-view on an authority higher than my own whenever possible. That being said, I would stipulate that I am not immune to that criticism either).

Since Max Planck’s Nobel prize in 1919, Quantum Mechanics has been a tangent from classical physics (Newton) and was furthered by guys like Heisenberg, Einstein, and Bohr. The math supports the theories, and it solved problems that classical physics could not.

But here is where the practicality and the problems lie. When you examine the functions, the math shows that wave functions exist as a superposition of all possible states. In this way, we can describe the characteristics of a particle. This makes all positions true simultaneously, and each position inevitable. Extrapolated to the absurd, this acceptance that all possibilities are true is one of the reasons for atheist/evolutionary appeals to a multi-verse, yet another unprovable fudge factor needed to explain the Big Bang Model in naturalistic terms, due to how impossibly finely tuned our universe is. (Stephen Hawking tinkered with this idea late in his life).

It is already well documented in many works the dedication modern scientists have to materialism, evolution, and the anathema of Intelligent Design within the halls of academia; accept anything to prevent a “divine foot in the door”, even that which is absurd, by their own admission. This leads of course to faith in the impossible, the unprovable, the unobservable, and faith in these things, they persist, is supported by QM, because all possibilities exist at once.

In this New Age, or post-modern age, this leads to a morally relativistic view of QM, that reality should be taken as subjective, or based on the observer. Both Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism known as “the observer collapses the wave function,” and even the Schrödinger’s Cat experiment, a now famous pop-culture reference from the Big Bang Theory show, was actually a purposeful reduction to the absurd, as Schrödinger relied more on the law of non-contradiction, rather than relativism.

The basic, true laws of nature and logic, like causality, identity, non-contradiction, were not abandoned by the fathers of QM theorists, but has been popularized today as more and more appeals to a Godless universe meet headlong with direct observable facts that keep proving the Big Bang theory is poor science. Hence the need for faith based beliefs and fudge factors, such as dark matter, dark energy, the Inflaton, the multiverse, etc. You will notice, all of these fudge factors, the physicist and cosmologist must have “faith” in to keep hoping that the universe is Godless. But they do not attribute it to faith, as they lean on the crutch of relativity that QM provides for them. Since it is their specialized, elite field they hold in high esteem above the average plebian’s paltry understanding, they fall into the trap of valuing their elegant math-based conclusions over obvious empirical observations we see and understand every day. They surmise in their own minds every possibility is inevitable without God, as long as they don’t have to observe those conclusions today in real time. This appeal to deep time, or enough time, is the magic elixir poured into each opinion to add credence, and is done so with impunity, since this pillar of evolution is automatically ensconced in the public’s mind as “fact.” In this manner, they can criticize the Christian as ignorant, stupid, or insane (Richard Dawkins) while employing the same tactics themselves, faith being the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

When we speak in laymen’s terms, it boils down to very smart scientists and mathematicians being so hyper focused on the minutia of QM, that they miss the forest for the trees. This is of course coupled with utter dedication to the presupposition that inorganic evolution is true, as it must be if we are to believe that directionless, purposeless, unthinking inorganic material somehow create intelligent order. We are once again faced with this persistent axiom, Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Again, this is simply because all possibilities exist simultaneously, including one where there is perfect order.

Doctor of Physical Chemistry, Jonathan Sarfati, a respecter of Newton, science, and a creationist, states it this way: “It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory.”

Bottom line, QM works, has strong support, and is not a threat to creationism. In fact, some studies highlight its usefulness in nature, (sense of smell, photosynthesis, bird navigation). But with presuppositions on both sides, what we see is the confusing of QM with interpretations of QM. Luckily we have observable reality to rely on, and in that reality, we know how nature reacts unmanipulated by intelligence, and no amount of insistence that explosions create perfect order naturally will change that.

Dark Matter; Why Does It Matter?

Disclaimer: I am not a cosmologist.

But here is what I do know. The model used to get from the Big Bang explosion from nothing to today’s observable universe, via naturalist or materialist means simply does not work without Dark Matter. (well, it doesn’t work for a myriad of other reasons too, but even assuming the rest fit, the naturalist needs Dark Matter).

Definitions are important, and sometimes I take for granted that everyone knows what I mean when I say things. So let’s take a second and define what I mean when I say a few terms:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.

When I say naturalist, or materialist, it is simply a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Things only developed through natural means, without a designer. Essentially this is the normative atheistic point of view.

And Dark Matter? What is it? Well, the definition provided is “a nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang.”

These “particles” mind you, are not detectable by any means we now possess. Not visible or observable on any known spectrum. Can’t see it. Can’t feel it. Can’t hear it.

Then how, you might ask, do we know it is there? The answer is, it has to be, because if it wasn’t, the Big Bang model falls apart. In other words, those who operate under the presupposition that the universe propagated itself via natural means know that Dark Matter exists, because it has to exist for the presupposition to be true. This is the atheist’s own version of the “god of the gaps” argument. There is a major scientific gap in how stars can form and how galaxies have been able to maintain their shape (the wind-up problem) and in order to add the correct amount of gravity necessary to make the computer simulations work, they have invented, made up, concocted, pretended, that Dark Matter exists so that the observable universe is more mathematically feasible.

You see, without Dark Matter, the first stars could not have formed in the vacuum of space. If Hydrogen and Helium were floating around in a vacuum, physics tells us the particles would expand. Certainly if they were somehow inclined to coalesce into something more dense, and the temperature would rise, making them expand more, curbing any tendency inorganic, purposeless particles might have to form into a star. A star that must get so dense that it weighs 4,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lbs, the weight of our own sun. Out of Helium. And hydrogen. In space.

The solution, enter Dark Matter. A plugged in and specified amount of un-detectable, un-observable gravity, that is there, simply because it must be, that would push these air particles together hard enough, and long enough to force them into creating the first stars.

I’d like to point out here that this is the self-same scientific community that prides itself on being the paragons of logic, who have market cornered on beliefs that are securely moored to facts, and who are quick to point fingers at believers in God as anti-science. The Berkeley science website even states, “Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable.” – (understanding science, 2014).

And what is supernatural? It is defined as a force beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature. A force beyond observable nature.

A good example of such a supernatural force would of course be Dark matter.

Why am I so adamant, and even occasionally snarky about this subject? Because I feel the ridiculousness of these theories are obvious. The fudge factors are well known within the scientific community, and yet these obvious pleas for legitimacy are never presented to students. Only big words, and the repeating drums of the big bang being fact, along with great animation, and spectacular fairy tales propped up by eons of time. When spoken of in common language, explained in laymen’s terms, and splashed with the cold water of reality, with the physical laws of the universe, scientists are knowingly making up different types of matter, that no one can see, with the exact properties they need them to have, so that they do not have to be wrong. Dark Matter is one of several.

When I explain the reality of Dark Matter theory to my nine year old, she has the common sense to laugh at those silly scientists. Of course the atheist who sees Christians raise their kids with the notion that stars are a special creation, just like humans are, accuses the Christian of child abuse, negligence, and bad parenting.

But the materialists make up fudge factors with impunity, and without compunction. They call it good science, because it supports their idea of a Godless universe, and they manipulate data and simulations to tell the story they want to believe in. This has not been a search for truth. This has instead been a scramble to defend a dying cosmological model. Dark Matter, and it’s perfect and uncanny gravity, is just another example of this dishonest practice.

My question is, how many made up components of the Big Bang model must their be, before the materialists admit that they too are faith based, and that their faith is in that which is beyond nature, beyond the ability to observe, and in that which contradicts the laws of physics? The difference between concluding that there is a God and concluding that there is Dark Matter, is that the heavens declare the glory of God, it is obvious to any nine year old who looks up to the heavens in awe. Dark matter is declared by no one but the scientists who invented it, and use it in hopes that it will keep the truth of God at bay for a little while longer.

UPDATE: In addition to this article, I will add here an excerpt from the article, “Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way”, sciencedaily.com, February 2015.

““The existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well established. But historically it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions, where the Solar System is located. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision from our own position in the Milky Way.
“In our new study, we obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of the Milky Way. We have created the most complete compilation so far of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way, and compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the Galactic centre,” says Miguel Pato at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.” (emphasis added).

This statement, “The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us”, is the obvious and continual bias coming from the scientific community. The effect of the presupposition of deep time is pervasive, and endlessly sabotages attempts at good science. It is the reason they must cling blindly to faith in made up fudge factors.

Also, this author claims “direct observational proof!” Of a substance they cannot detect! How did they directly observe it? They measured the rotation speed of heavenly bodies while assuming only detectable matter exists! In other words, they simply observed the natural universe. And since the conclusion makes deep time impossible, they know dark matter is proved! Are you kidding me?!

Here, from their own lips, you have faith in a made up element, rather than ever consider that their underlying assumptions about the universe are dead wrong.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 5

ME 89326. (pictured here)

This title, ME 89326 is the name given to classify this ancient relic, dated 2300 BC. It is also known as the Temptation Seal, and is an impression of a carving off a cylindrical seal of the Akkadian Empire. The Akkadian Empire was an ancient Mesopotamian Civilization, spawned in and around the city the Bible calls Akkad.

This piece is currently held at the British History Museum and was discovered in 1846. As we continue our study on the truth of creation, we look to pieces such as this to verify that yes indeed, the Adam and Eve story was circulating within different cultures, as reflected here in the artwork of an ancient people who were not Hebrews.

Of course, a secular museum would not encourage such beliefs, being of the presupposition that the story is certainly not real, and that the beginning of the Bible is not true history. As we have seen, and will continue to see, evolutionary presupposition will dictate what must and must not be, including what an obvious piece like this cannot represent. The notes at the British Museum accompanying this relic state: “…the seal belongs to the well known Akkadian periods 2300 BC, the dated palm and the snake may have fertility significance, there is no reason to connect them to the Adam and Eve Story.”

The insistence that this is not the Adam and Eve story being depicted is quite telling. Notice that these forensic scientists don’t even allow for that possibility, and want visitors to know that they would be undoubtedly in error to assume such a thing, since the museum knows for sure that it just can’t be about that.

So let us look at the picture. The museum suggests that the figure is a man (left) seated in front of a god (right, with headdress), and that some offering is taking place. The plant offering is to worship divine fertility.

The problem: Historically in this period, neither male nor female worshipers are ever shown seated before a god. They are always shown standing with arms up, praising. Another important difference is the worshiper is always depicted smaller in size than the god being worshiped.

Now, if we look at it from a biblical perspective, we have the oral narrative of mankind’s beginnings, which must have been passed down to every and all people from Noah’s family of 8, up until the tower of Babel. Afterwards, oral, written, and artistic depictions of these same narratives, flood legends, creation, and the fall are recorded. In this case, in Mesopotamia, we have a simple enough depiction which was more than likely carved on a cylinder only 300-400 years after the flood took place.

Two human beings, a male and a female, of equal stature, and having a familiar relationship, sit across from one another to eat a fruit. They both eat of the fruit, and behind the woman, as if to tempt her, is a serpent. Further extrapolation might note that the tree is of great importance, central to the depiction, and has seven branches, the number of God and divinity.

It is hard to imagine the events of Adam and Eve being depicted more concisely then this.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 4

The Torah, the first five books of the bible is written as a historical narrative. Often referred to as The Law, the Pentateuch, it sets the foundation of not only the beginning of the line of Christ, but also the beginnings of mankind, giving us insight into many things we can observe today, such as languages, genetics, geology, and the fossil record. But who wrote it?

Many critics of the bible assert that Genesis was written long after Moses, and Abraham, that it was written by the Jews in the 5th and 6th centuries BC, when The Jews went back after captivity to rebuild the temple. This would discredit the rich history, and mean that the Jews somehow borrowed and fabricated the narrative we see.

Let’s see what the bible has to say?

Luke 24

27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

John 5

46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 7

19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

Acts 3

22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you

Does the bible clearly indicate who wrote the Law? If not Moses, who would you be disagreeing with?

What does it say within the Torah itself?

Exodus 17

4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

24:4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

34:27 And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

It would appear that according to the law itself, Moses was asked to write these things down, and as we saw before, these writings were corroborated by Christ Himself. Does the rest of the Old Testament refer to the Law as well? Let’s see:

Joshua 1:8 (1405 BC) This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

1 Kings 2: 1-3 (971 BC) When David’s time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, ²“I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, ³and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn,

2 Kings 14: 1-6 (Amaziah Reigned 796-767 BC) In the second year of Joash the son of Joahaz, king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. 3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not like David his father. He did in all things as Joash his father had done. 4 But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. 5 And as soon as the royal power was firmly in his hand, he struck down his servants who had struck down the king his father. 6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

As we can clearly see from a quick scan of the word, going back to the patriarchs of Jewish history, they had referred to the Law. If the minor prophets made it up later, how would it makes sense that they were referring back to a Law that they were making up on the fly? Were they inventing a Law, and a history, that they were simultaneously struggling to keep? And what about Joshua, referring to it as far back as 1400 BC.

The minor prophets mention Moses and the Law many times:

Isaiah 12 times
Jeremiah 12 times
Ezekiel 6 times
Daniel 4 times
Malachi 5 times
Hosea 3 times
Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah all mention it once.

The point of this stage of the lesson is this; if we disagree with the authorship of the Genesis account, we might as well disagree with the historicity of the entire collection of God’s word. But to do that, logically, we dismiss it’s many truths, fulfilled prophecies, eye witness details, archaeological supports, and many other facts which point to its veracity. They verify each other. Furthermore, the authorship of all 66 books spans a 1400 year period, so these are not co-conspirators. We presupposed the bible as truth in the first lesson, but obviously this puts firmly in your mind the position all the authors took in regards to the Torah. To dismiss the first five books as fable, or made-up would be folly. Plain and simple.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 3

The scientific credentials that come with the name Stephen Hawking are great indeed. One of the greatest theoretical physicists of our time, cosmologist, a medical miracle in his own right, and accomplished author, and no one would question his intelligence. But does even he succumb to the pitfalls of of presupposition?

We have discussed in these blogs how alien life is assumed by many evolutionists, both as a form of creating life on this planet (panspermia), as well as a form of “just-so” science, because we “know evolution is true, and therefore it must also have happened elsewhere. Hawking had stated before he passed away that he felt mankind should be looking to escape the Earth, to find a way to leave it, and colonize elsewhere. This is caused by a world view quite different then that of a Christian theist.

Furthermore, Stephen Hawking wrote The Grand Design, and in it, agrees Universe appears to be highly fine tuned for life, had a beginning. In this book he states this: “This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism which implies… that there are no miracles or exceptions to the laws of nature.” – pg 34, The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking.

We should listen, yes? Because he is a brilliant scientist? What is the problem here?

This is a philosophical assertion! Not at all a scientific one. You cannot determine this as a fact by way of a scientific experiment. How do we know, then? Because he said it. It is just so. Scientific Determinism is true, there are no miracles, therefore atheism must be true. Because he stated it.

Interestingly, his book also says, ““Free will is just an illusion.” – pg 32. This is reminiscent of his opinion in 1990 when Hawking determined we are not free, we are totally determined. If you are pre-wired to think the way you do,how can you make any truth claim? You don’t have the free will, according to Hawking himself, to make a truth claim, only produce a result caused by how stimulus is processed through a random brain. So based on his own philosophy, how could anyone trust any of his thoughts on truth at all? Is he not simply pre-wired to think the way he does?

The moment you make a truth claim, you violate determinism.

As much as they would like to deny it, materialists are forced to use philosophy, even as they deny using it. Philosophy always buries its undertakers. To deny it IS to use it. Science is Bound to philosophy and cannot be done without it. Assumptions must be made, and those can dramatically affect conclusions.

We must remember as Dr, Frank Turek says, science doesn’t actually say anything; SCIENTISTS DO! All data must be interpreted.

Let us look at an example of how we must interpret data. The Eiffel tower has demonstrable, testable attributes. Some of these are:

1,063 ft tall
Wrought Iron Lattice Tower
Weight is 10,100 tons
Located on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France

If one were inclined, one could test and re-test for the accuracy of any of these statements. But what about these facts?

Engineer was Gustave Eiffel
Finished in 1889

How do we know these are correct? We must conclude them from trusted sources, yes? This means that we must find those historic, written sources to be accurate, not tampered with, and found to fit the proper historical context. No one questions these two facts, but it brings about an interesting point. The facts in this case must be believed; they are not testable, and repeatable. They are forensic in nature.

All history is this way, including Biblical history, Cryptology, Archeology, Criminal forensics, Geology, Paleontology, and Cosmology. We must collect data, and interpret it based on our pre-suppositions. Ken Ham, the creationist, pointed this out while teaching.

As a teacher, he found that whenever he taught the students what he thought were the “facts” for creation, then their other teacher would just reinterpret the facts. The students would then come back to him saying, “Well sir, you need to try again.”

Conversely, when he learned to teach his students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 2

God uses natural causes, to be sure, but can they explain everything? A materialist atheist, and a Christian both believe in natural causes. Of course we can find causality through natural means. But what about things that are forensic in nature, meaning, those things that are not repeatable in a lab, or observable on any level, and more to the point, contradict what we DO observe! Such as the creation of matter? Life from non-life? Creation of new elements?

Things that cannot be explained by science. – aesthetics, ethics, mathematics and logic, metaphysical truths (like there are other minds then my own).

In the 1700’s, David Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Hume’s assertion was that things were only actually meaningful if, and only if: The truth claim is of abstract reasoning, such as 2+2=4, or all triangles have three sides; and the truth claim can be verified by the 5 senses. Norman Geisler defeated this by simply observing, “The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1. those that are true by definition, and 2. those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability is neither true by definition, nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.” A slick idea met with the swift and brutal simplicity of logic.
Kant, another skeptic, said that you can’t know the real world. Of course, then how do you know that about the real world?

The theme here is that much of what we use to interpret and understand about life, the universe, creation, is based on our faith, and our presuppositions. An example:

“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. it is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist” – Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997. Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

I posed this question to the class; does it appear that this person’s conclusions would be influenced by his presuppositions?

Another fantastic example is from Dr. Steven Stanley, (Bioscience, vol. 36 (Dec 1986) p. 725. paleontologist and evolutionary biologist), who specialized in punctuated equilibrium. This is the reaction to lack of evidence within Darwinism. Many scientists proposed that punctuated equilibrium explained things that could not be seen by evidence, namely, that animals mutated quickly into other species, thereby leaving no evidence within the fossil record. He said, “Evolution happens rapidly in small, localized populations, so we’re not likely to see it in the fossil record.” Now, we ask again, is this conclusion based on science? He is literally claiming evolutionary change has occurred between the rock layers, where we find no evidence! Safe to say that Stanley had already made up his mind that evolution was true, and since he “knows” this, has proposed a non-scientific model to explain it.

Lastly, for this portion of the lesson, we will look at a notorious quote from Dr. Richard Charles Lewontin, Columbia University is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ”

Posing the same question, do we honestly think an unbiased look at evidence would be likely here? Stated another way, if the truth did rest in the fact that God was a cause, could this type of “science” ever discover the truth?

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 1

I am teaching through a series on Genesis at my church, as an 8 week course. After the classes, I will be posting the same lessons in article form on here, so anyone may follow along as we continue forward in our study of Genesis, its authenticity, and the historicity of Creation as recorded in our bibles.

This series will be predicated upon certain presuppositions from the outset. The examination of these presuppositions has been addressed in many previous writings.

The first presupposition for the class is that truth is knowable. This means that we have done away, as far as this series is concerned, with debate from the post-modernist or relativist agenda. A simple refutation lies in the answer to the common assertion: “there is no absolute truth!”

To which someone should answer, “Is that absolutely true?” We turn the question on itself, and realize the self-defeating nature of relative truth very easily. Most post-modernist authors want to be exempt from their own conclusions.

C.S Lewis said, in regards to the philosophical first principles of truth, “These first principles of practical reason are fundamental to all knowledge and argument, to deny them is to deny knowledge itself.” In other words, if you deny truth exists, you can’t know anything, discover anything, determine anything. All knowledge would be rendered useless.

Secondly, we would stipulate that the Bible is the inspired word of God. There are many reasons for this of course, born out through history, testimony, archaeology. Although some supporting evidence may occur during the series, the focus is not to prove the Bible is God-breathed. We will stipulate that since it has already stood the tests of time and unrelenting scrutiny, the Bible, is

John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we would embark on the series looking at the world from a biblical world view. What we believe determines how we behave. This means that if our presupposition is that atheism, or evolution is true, and the only possible creative mechanism, this determines how we see the world. If God is possible, even probable, making more logical sense in the end anyway, then this allows of the possibility that the bible is true history, miracles are possible, and that determinism cannot and will not explain the existence of time, space and matter.

Need we look at everything then, as religion vs science?

Absolutely not! Science is the search for causes, essentially. Observations in our natural world SHOULD line up with the word. This means that we do not commit the folly of excluding the possibility of God, by adhering to evolutionary presuppositions, and saying things are “just so”.“Just-So Science” example: We know that life arose from non-life because we know that it is so, because evolution is true.

If nature had a beginning, then how can the cause be something natural, since nature didn’t exist. Nature was the effect. Therefore the cause must be beyond nature, or supernatural.

I do not have all the answers, (another stipulation). Yes I have a passion for this material, and the study, but I’m not a scientist or a doctor. But it would be my heart’s desire for you to walk away from the series, and be able to stand tall and say, I am a bible thumping Christian, I believe the bible from cover to cover, and make no apology for that. Hopefully a tool of discipleship. At the very least, perhaps it helps people think of things they had not considered before.

To be continued in part 2.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: