Our Websites

They’re both religions

Many people think that religion and science do not go together. Often, they compartmentalize each into completely separate places in their lives. Science, after all, is based upon observation and testing—unquestionable facts. Right? Religion, on the other hand, is based upon thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Science is material; religion is immaterial. Science gives answers; religion causes problems. Isn’t this the basic attitude towards the two?

Ultimately, anything that is untestable is put into the realm of religion. We can observe the law of gravity. We can test the law of inertia. Of course, these would not be considered religious. We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it. We have not witnessed a star form. We have not seen life emerge from non-life.

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

For more on this topic, please watch “They’re Both Religions,” session one of my Beginnings DVD curriculum.

,

Leave67 Responses to testThey’re both religions

  1. David McCrea February 17, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    Andrew Ryan wrote: “Evolution through natural selection explains bio-diversity on the planet.”

    See Andrew, you again made my point for me. You throw out one (totally meaningless) sentence and the rest of us are supposed to take a seat and be quiet. Evolution through natural selection does NOT explain bio-diversity on the planet. You’re attempting to promote Darwinian evolution to god status. Evolution is not, and never will be, a creative force. Intelligence on an unimaginable scale is what is responsible for and behind our planet’s bio-diversity.

    And the rest of the atheists say the same thing in response to creationists’ questions the atheists know they can’t answer: “Get yourself a good science book. You OBVIOUSLY don’t understand how evolution works.”

    Let me be very clear in my response. I know EXACTLY how evolution works. I was immersed in Darwin’s godless theory for more years than I care to count. I believed it to be true because that’s what the biology teachers and scientists we’re teaching and we all know teachers and scientists (i.e. human beings) are without bias, right?

    In 1965 I was in FIRST GRADE attending Robert E. Lamberton school in Philadelphia, PA when I was first exposed to Darwin’s ridiculous religion. Above the front chalk board, posted directly to the right of the alphabet, was the evolutionary icon, the monkey to man poster. And even at that age I knew it contradicted the teachings of the Bible. I was in 1st grade for goodness sakes and the godless evolutionists just couldn’t wait to start the brainwashing process. That, in my Christian opinion, is the epitome of EVIL.

    The scales over my eyes didn’t fall until I was 39 years old. I thank Jesus every day for saving me from myself. He has set me free, and He can do the same for you. So, when will the scales fall from your eyes?

    God bless!

  2. Carl M February 17, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    @ John Poe

    Is your name really “John”? :)

  3. David McCrea February 18, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    Duane,

    Transitional fossils are another evolutionary fairy tale. What are the criteria, and who decides the criteria in order for a fossil (otherwise known as old bones in the dirt) to be “transitional?”

    Evolutionists have no idea if the fossil in question is/was transitional. So what if it shares morphological similarities with other fossils? It still doesn’t prove the fossil transitioned from, or into, anything else. It’s a classic example of science being driven by the observer’s worldview. “I believe in Darwinian evolution so therefore…” Nonsense! You would need to examine literally hundreds of generations of pre-transition and post-transition fossils AND know for a fact they were directly related to the so-called transitional fossil to even begin to declare it as such.

    In the words of the evolutionists:

    “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.”
    — Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

    This next quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:

    “… a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”

    If we are truly interested in searching for the truth, then let’s at least be honest. Without hard evidence that transitional fossils exist, the whole rotten corpse of Darwinian evolution is exposed for the fraud that it is.

    And I was particularly struck by one other comment you made. Here it is so I’m not accused of misquoting: “Life starts out simple.”

    And my response is simple: “Prove it, Duane.” Life, regardless of form or function, is never “simple.” Please take off your Darwin glasses. Then maybe you will see the true beauty of God’s Creation.

  4. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 7:51 am #

    Mark James,

    You said,

    I assume we can agree that no-one witnessed the event that caused the universe to come into existence, so it is not observable. I would also assume we can agree that no-one has been able to create a universe in the laboratory…

    So far we’re pretty much in agreement.

    …, which means it is not empirically testable.

    But that’s where you lose me.

    You’ve moved the goalpost on me Mark. At first we were discussing whether the big bang theory could be tested, but now all the sudden it must be “reproducible in a lab” in order to qualify as science according to you.

    “Empirically testable” means only “The ability to gain knowledge through observation”. It doesn’t require that we reproduce the event itself.

    Even according to you, the big bang theory can be tested, and be shown false, through observation (you provided what you believe to be evidence against it), and observations can lead to a better understanding of whether it happened or not. This entire site and the Hovind’s videos are full of what they claim are evidence against the big bang, biological evolution and a hundred other scientific theories, and also what they claim is evidence that the Biblical creation event fits better with observations we make about the world.

    All of you are trying to demonstrate scientifically that the Bible’s account in Genesis is testable, confirm-able and that it’s after affects are observable. Now, I think the Hovind’s do a particularly bad job of this, but that is beside the point.

    Below is some of the titles of the articles on this site. All of them attempt to use observations and tests to support the theory that the earth was created by God roughly 6,000 years ago, and they claim the observations support that conclusion (they don’t, but again, that’s beside the point).

    The fact that they can then turn around and claim that “origins” can not be tested scientifically, absolutely blows my mind.

    FOSSILS ARE GOSPEL TRACTS FROM NOAH’S FLOOD

    THINGS THAT NEGATE EVOLUTION: SNAKE LEGS

    RAPID FOSSILIZATION

    EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH

    EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG UNIVERSE

    HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN “VARVE,” THE FORMATION OF FINE STRATA LAYERS?

    Jay

  5. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    One last comment on this and I think I’ll call this horse sufficiently beaten. :-)

    If theories of origins can’t be tested and “must be accepted on faith”, then I suggest that the Hovind’s pack up shop and close the doors.

    CSE’s efforts are entirely based on providing what they think are evidences that (a) the big bang/stellar nucleosenthisis/abiogenisis/evolution didn’t occur and that (b) the creation story in the Bible did occur, and can be confirmed.

    CSE’s very existence is contrary to this blog post.

    Jay

  6. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    Real quick,

    The comments about Jennifer Preston and I are, I think, uncalled for. It doesn’t particularly bother me, but intentionally trying to embarrass someone here is not conducive to a constructive and mature discussion.

    I take no real offence at good fun, but others may not take it as lightly.

  7. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    Mark James, in your other post, you said.

    The only way this could possibly be contradictory is if I were talking about one scientist and one piece of evidence. Surely you would agree that it is possible for a scientist to supress one piece of evidence while ignoring another, or for one scientist to supress evidence while another scientist incorporates it. Where’s the contradiction?

    I’ll concede that point.

    But I would like to add to this that, while I agree, some scientists may suppress evidence, others ignore it, while others try to manipulate it, and yet others try to incorporate it into the prevailing theories, none of these are grand, conspiratorial efforts of the “scientific establishment” (which is what you seemed to have implied)

    I took you post to be an attack on pretty much all scientists (or at least, all cosmologists that aren’t young earth creationists, which is pretty much all of them). The problem you cite, frankly, simply doesn’t exist on a grand scale. While individual scientists treat evidence differently, “the scientific establishment” usually does a good job of taking into account new evidence and developing or tweaking theories to fit that evidence. Or, as is the case you cited, attempting to confirm that the supposed evidence is actually a real phenomenon (in that case, it wasn’t).

    Science is a peer reviewed, collective process, with good scientists, bad scientists, mainstream scientists and maverick scientists. This is why it works. Individuals, even scientists, are often biased in their research and interpretations, which is why research requires peer review and repeatability. The issue you bring up, of evidence being suppressed, might exist when examining individual scientists or studies, but it simply doesn’t exist as any sort of systemic problem with the scientific process as a whole. The big bang theory, and evolution are not the work of one man, they have been confirmed by the collective effort of thousands of scientists and researchers.

    As an example, I’m sure Arden did good work by and large, and I’m glad he proposed his theories. We need people to legitimately* challenge the consensus. It serves at least one of two functions: 1) It possibly points out areas of consensus that need modifying and/or throwing out, or 2) if discovered to be unfounded, it strengthens that consensus and further suggests that we had it right to begin with. Arden’s objections to the big bang, have actually strengthened it’s veracity, because it kicked off multiple rigorous tests to falsify it, which ultimately failed.

    *Note the qualifier “legitimately”. This is the part where creationists usually fail. Semantical arguments, and rhetorical tricks do little to challenge a well established scientific theory. For example, “The big bang is impossible because matter cannot be created or destroyed?” doesn’t challenge the theory because it’s based on a complete misunderstanding of what the theory even proposes. It is “not even wrong”. I’ll discuss this when I address Stephen and David’s posts.

  8. John Poe February 18, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    Yes, my name is John Poe, why do you ask? Are you hitting on me?

  9. Stephen Holshouser February 18, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    James McGraw,

    I just finished grading your answers. No prize for you, I’m afraid.

    Question 1. Picture your imaginary early life-form common ancestor thing; How did this thing, or its descendents, ever become aware of the existence of light, temperature, pressure, or any internal or external environment at all?

    “1. Such things were naturally selected: it is advantageous to detect the existence of light, temperature, pressure, or any internal or external environment.”

    Natural selection only selects from what is already there. No one disagrees with that, however, the question is “how did it get there in the first place?” You see, you can’t live or reproduce without senses, so it had to be in the very first living organisms… unimaginable complexity from the get-go!
    ____________________________________________________________

    Question 2. If you have no way of perceiving light waves, sound waves, temperature, etc, how could you evolve an organ to perceive it? (If you don’t know it’s there, how could you evolve anything to sense it?)

    “2. Because evolution is not a conscious decision made by the evolver. (More to the point why would you think that is what evolution suggests?)”

    Again, we’re dealing with the origin of sensation, not how it survives after it is there. You see, nothing can survive or reproduce without a sensory system. So let’s hear your description of how the FIRST living organism that ever replicated itself, which would be equipped a highly complex sensory system, came into being. Come on, out with it.
    __________________________________________________________

    Question 3. How can anything survive and/or reproduce without the complexities of sensory systems?

    “3. How do you think bacteria survive and/or reproduce without the complexities of sensory systems?”

    Do you think bacteria don’t have sensory systems? Google “can bacteria sense” …it’s amazing what they can do!
    ___________________________________________________________

    Question 4. What came first; a living organism or its sensory system?

    “4. Both.”

    Congratulations. You’re a creationist!
    ____________________________________________________________

    Question 5. If there are things out there that we do not know exist because we cannot perceive them, how could we as human beings develop the physical senses to perceive them? ..to perceive radio waves, for instance? (this is the exact process necessary to answer question 1)

    “5. Same answer (and question) as #2.”

    Same response as # 2.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Question 6. Why can’t you see that the only possible, logical, rational reason that anyone or thing can perceive the world around them is because the Eternal God designed them fully formed with the ability to perceive and interact with the elements of His creation and bring glory, honor, and praise to their Creator?

    “6. Probably because that’s not the only possible, logical, rational reason.”

    You still haven’t even attempted to put forth another alternative to special creation for the ORIGIN of sensation. You’ve just basically said, “the senses are beneficial so they were naturally selected to survive.” Feel free to take another stab at it. If you don’t know, I’ll gladly accept, “I have no idea. I just believe that it happened.”

  10. Stephen Holshouser February 18, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Jay,

    “The comments about Jennifer Preston and I are, I think, uncalled for. It doesn’t particularly bother me, but intentionally trying to embarrass someone here is not conducive to a constructive and mature discussion.
    I take no real offence at good fun, but others may not take it as lightly.”

    You’re right, I’m sorry. That’s sweet of you to stick up for Jennifer like that, though… chivalry is not dead!

  11. Duane February 19, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    Stephen Holshouser February 17th at 3:44 pm

    Duane,

    You said;
    “Do you realize your religion requires you to believe in an invisible, magical entity that poofed everything into existence with a few magic words over a period of 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, which includes creating light before creating the sun, moon or stars? It requires you to believe the entire universe was created in situ for the sole benefit of YOU. It also requires you to believe that this same entity called the animals out of the dirt and the fish and birds out of the sea? It also created man from dust and woman from his rib. He also put them in a garden containing a tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and a talking snake, without any sense of metaphorical irony? It also requires you to believe that 1500 or so years after this creation event, all life was killed except for a genetic bottleneck that actually requires evolution to then occur at vastly more rapid rates than is alleged by “evolution”, rates of mutation comparable to cancer victims.”

    I’ll take that any day of the week over “everything from nothing” and Great Grandpa Igneous falling madly in love with Great Grandma Metamorphic that later results in all life as we know it. “Talk about a genetic bottleneck” take a look at the gene code of a rock!

    You are doing it again. No scientist says we came from a rock. Creationism says we came from dust (essentially the same a rock). You are taking your belief, removing a key component rendering it absurd (instead of merely irrational), and calling it MY belief.

    “Fossilization is a rare event”

    Hey, you’re right. Tell me, what has to happen for an plant or animal to fossilize? How is it that we have billions and billions of fossils everywhere, all over the world? I have a theory about that if you are interested.

    What, your absurd flood story? Or perhaps we’ve had billions of years to accumulate them.

    “You have your God glasses on. You are presupposing that someone had to create all animals (I’ll restrict to just animals) at once, fully formed and modern using some sort of lego set with all the special pieces in the box, just needing plugged into place. Life starts out simple Hovind (father or son) have not once, EVER, factually represented the side of science. This can range from misrepresentations to outright lies.”

    Okay Duane; I’m calling you out again. Let us all hear YOUR factual representation of your side so we don’t distort it. You say life starts out simple? Okay let’s hear about it. Tell us how it started out. The reason you won’t answer is because you have NO earthly idea. Even the simplest life-form you can imagine is highly complex. “Life” and “simple” don’t go together. Life must start out extremely complex, or it doesn’t start at all it didn’t start out simple!! If you do attempt to answer (you won’t), you will describe something that is A.) highly complex with the ability to maintain homeostasis and replicate itself, or B.) something that is non-living without the ability to reproduce either way you will become a creationist unless you just continue to willfully, stubbornly ignore the obvious to your own detriment. If you cannot even describe to us what you believe, then please stop complaining about creationists pointing out where your theory logically begins.

    Go over to talkorigins or read a book by a non-apologist. Read something that YOU DISAGREE WITH. It would take far too long to explain 150 years of science to someone whose beliefs can be fully represented in a child’s storybook. Tell me. DID I misrepresent your beliefs? I’ve watched an awful lot of Hovind and he does indeed teach Chick Tract level theology. You guys claim you have the ULTIMATE TRUTH. If that were the case, then there should be no variation on your beliefs. Care to conference in the other 30,000 + sects? You don’t have an answer, you have a 2500 year old superstition. Science doesn’t claim to have the ultimate truth. Something could show up tomorrow to upset the apple cart. It hasn’t happened in 151 years, and I doubt it will tomorrow.

    “You guys genuinely have no actual concept of what Evolution actually is, or really even care. You are just afraid we’re taking God away from you. You can’t lose what you never had.”

    Atheistic evolution has just been taken away from you, Duane, with no alternative but the Master-Designer. Ask the Lord to rescue you from the bondage of sin and unbelief and trust in Jesus Christ as your only Savior. You may “have” Him as well. I am for you, not against you, my friend.

    Once again we get the propaganda. “Come, join us. You only need check your mind at the door. You can use PayPal or we take VISA.”
    If your religion or its proponents can not accurately describe reality, why should I trust them to describe the “Great Beyond”? Tell me. If there really was a God that loved us and wanted us to know Him, why did He reveal it to 1 or 2 people and hope the word got out. Why did he use text, of which we have no original versions which survives in copies of copies of translations of copies, which show signs of redaction and alteration, in languages that died out? You can’t accept current reliable, testable science but I’m supposed to take the word of ancient accounts from a pre-scientific credulous age that believed in witches and accepted slavery and thought that rape victims are guilty if they don’t cry out loud enough? I’m supposed to take as literal Word of God stories that don’t even agree with itself?

    “PS; Why do you keep taking shots at John Bebbington? He’s on your side!”

    It was an error. His formatting of what he was responding to was kind of vague. I misread it.

  12. Duane February 19, 2011 at 3:43 am #

    David McCrea February 18th at 2:10 am

    Duane,

    Transitional fossils are another evolutionary fairy tale. What are the criteria, and who decides the criteria in order for a fossil (otherwise known as old bones in the dirt) to be “transitional?”

    Evolutionists have no idea if the fossil in question is/was transitional. So what if it shares morphological similarities with other fossils? It still doesn’t prove the fossil transitioned from, or into, anything else. It’s a classic example of science being driven by the observer’s worldview. “I believe in Darwinian evolution so therefore” Nonsense! You would need to examine literally hundreds of generations of pre-transition and post-transition fossils AND know for a fact they were directly related to the so-called transitional fossil to even begin to declare it as such.

    From TalkOrigins:
    “There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine “transitional” as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. ”

    Over 3 Billion years of life on this planet, we can’t expect to find the exact direct ancestors of any animal. An animal dies, it is eaten or its body is otherwise disposed. In rare events, an animals form is preserved. We’re lucky to have what we do have. And what we do have is fossils that show transitional features where we would expect them. From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones. It’s not the exact science you claim we say it is. I’m not a scientist, just a lay person, but I agree that the evidence is indeed interpreted through Darwinian assumptions. Come up with another set of assumptions that has been as reliable as Darwin’s and you might get some actual recognition. But don’t complain because it is not interpreted using the absurd childish assumptions of Creationism, with its 6 Day creation, dirt derived fully-formed life, talking snake, rib-woman, tree of the knowledge of good and evil, etc. Until you can come up with some reliable proof of this that doesn’t involve a certain 2500 year old text, then we’ll stick with the science we have.

    In the words of the evolutionists:

    “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.”
    Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

    This next quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:

    ” a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”

    If we are truly interested in searching for the truth, then let’s at least be honest. Without hard evidence that transitional fossils exist, the whole rotten corpse of Darwinian evolution is exposed for the fraud that it is.

    More quote mining. I actually see nothing wrong or particularly damning in those quotes. We DON’T have a direct illustration of evolutionary transitions from a particular species. No one claims we do. There’s a few we’re close on, but there are gaps. This is a red herring put up by Creationists and their inexplicable desire for exact, incontrovertible proof. What we have are evidences that points to a conclusion that is backed up by mounds and mounds of other evidences from multiple disciplines that together allow us to see the bigger picture. It’s the best we can hope for. We’ve only been at this for 150 years and we have to sift through much that has been obliterated by time to get the evidences we have. Regardless, we have enough evidence from other sources we don’t even need a single fossil. The fossils are simply icing on the cake and so far they have never contradicted evolution. Do they contradict Creationism? I care as much as I care if it contradicts any ancient mythological explanation. You want exact, perfect evidence from us while you supply Aesop tales and philosophy.

    And I was particularly struck by one other comment you made. Here it is so I’m not accused of misquoting: “Life starts out simple.”

    And my response is simple: “Prove it, Duane.” Life, regardless of form or function, is never “simple.” Please take off your Darwin glasses. Then maybe you will see the true beauty of God’s Creation.

    You are looking at the 2011 version. Even amoebae have 3 billion years of evolution behind them. I do see the true beauty of the universe. I choose not to make it smaller and less significant by assuming a Single Dad poofed it here for my benefit, played the ultimate prank on mankind and not only held a grudge for 4000 years, retired that grudge like the world’s biggest drama queen and STILL holds it against me if I don’t buy it. Sorry, you can keep your worthless God. What has He done for us lately? He can take time out of His busy day to put on His bread suit and show up in Church, but can’t be bothered for anything else.

  13. Jay Liverstitch February 19, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Steven said “You’re right, I’m sorry. That’s sweet of you to stick up for Jennifer like that, though chivalry is not dead!

    I knew I should’ve just left that alone :-P

  14. Stephen Geoly February 20, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    It is amazing to me that so many seemingly intelligent people on both sides of this issue don’t find more of a middle ground. The Gospel of Thomas, (which I know will be heresy to some of you to quote from) mentions something along the lines of Our Father being from … the place where the light came into being of it’s own accord and became manifest. I have never heard a better description of “the big bang”. The place where the light came into being of it’s own accord, from the darkness or the abyss. Does that mean that because a big bang was responsible for the initial formation of our universe that God, or Allah, or Yahweh, or the intelligent all, was not the original instigator. Couldn’t it be that there was a big bang, and in fact the “light” that came into being of it’s own accord was in fact God himself, becoming manifest and spreading through the universe, a holy spirit if you will, guiding all of creation into existence.
    Two billion christians, a billion muslims, and six million jews, all pray to the same God that Abraham did so many generations ago. I don’t doubt for a second that none of them have an accurate grasp of what or who God truly is, and or wants from us. But for evolutionists to not believe that it is possible, that indeed a Supreme Architect of the Universe started the whole process seems…shortsighted.
    Just my humble opinion.

  15. Mark James February 20, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    Hi Jay,

    You said: “Empirically testable means only “The ability to gain knowledge through observation”. It doesn’t require that we reproduce the event itself.”

    Empirically testable actually means “Testable by practical experience and not theory.” The “observation” in your definition is to “see” something happen. To be empirically testable the science must be reproducible in the laboratory, which allows for a degree of certainty in the results. Origins science cannot be empirically tested and so relies on interpretation, which immediately introduces uncertainty.

    It’s not me that has moved the goalpost here. There is a subtle blurring of the boundaries in most people’s understanding of science. Because scientists can empirically test and prove many phenomena there is a widespread belief, outside of the scientific community, that origins science can likewise be proved conclusively. I would suggest that many within the scientific community, and, in particular those who vehemently deny the existence of God, are quite happy for this misunderstanding to remain and in some cases actively propagate it to support their religiously held position.

  16. Mark James February 20, 2011 at 3:43 am #

    Jay (again)’

    You said ‘The problem you cite, frankly, simply doesn’t exist on a grand scale.’

    If you are referring to the red shift anomaly, it doesn’t have to exist on a grand scale! The fact that it exists at all is a challenge to the very foundation of the big bang theory. And the only way scientists currently seem to deal with it is to brush it off as an ‘optical illusion.’

    Unfortunately there is not just one occurence and, as I stated earlier, there even appears to be at least one high red shift quasar with low red shift galaxies behind it.

    Actually, the response that I have had to my posts on the red shift anomaly supports an asserion I made earlier. Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but I have gone back over your response, and to those of Jack and Duane, and it seems to me that none of you knew about this phenomena until I brought it to your attention. I’m not surprised by this as I only found out about it recently.

    Now, if this anomaly exists (and it certainly seems to) and if it has been known about for 40 years, why isn’t it common knowledge? Surely it should be mentioned every time the big bang theory and red shift are mentioned. Scientists should be openly discussing the implications and students, at all levels, taught about the controversy.

    Obviously this is not and has not been happening. Could it be that the evidence is being ignored? Or maybe it is just being supressed until it can be incorporated into a modified version of the current theory. Hmmm…

  17. Mark James February 20, 2011 at 4:00 am #

    Hi Jay (one more),

    You said ‘If theories of origins can’t be tested and “must be accepted on faith”, then I suggest that the Hovind’s pack up shop and close the doors.

    CSE’s efforts are entirely based on providing what they think are evidences that (a) the big bang/stellar nucleosenthisis/abiogenisis/evolution didn’t occur and that (b) the creation story in the Bible did occur, and can be confirmed.

    CSE’s very existence is contrary to this blog post.’

    Not at all! CSE are simply providing an alternative interpretation of the available scientific evidence. Their (and my) starting point is belief in the creation account in the Bible, as opposed to a belief that a big bang started it all and evolutionary processes over billions of years got us to where we are today. Both starting points require faith, which is where this whole thread started.