The Center for Scientific Creation and the Creation Science Hall of Fame separately announced today that an astronomical date for the Global Flood is now available.
Tag Archives: astronomy
Genesis 1-11: a scientific apologetic
For centuries, beginning with Leonardo da Vinci, scientists accepted the account in Genesis chapters 1-11 as almost self-evident. As a result, they made few efforts to validate it. (Athanasius Kircher, who wrote a scholarly treatment of the voyage of Noah’s Ark, was one notable exception.) As a further result, those who doubted the Genesis account could easily persuade people not to believe it. But since 1960, many creation scientists have sought to show not only that those eleven chapters of Genesis happened as Moses wrote them down, but how they might have happened. Today, a careful scholar can read those chapters and imagine at least one, and often several, ways their story might have played out.
Life before Earth – or with it
Recently two scientists showed an amazing mathematical chimera: life before earth. They think they showed that life began 9.7 billion years ago – four billion years after the universe began. They really showed that life could not have come from non-life. At least, not on earth. In the process they made the creation story far more likely than they might care to admit.
360 day year: no coincidence
The most ancient calendars all assumed a 360 day year. But why, when astronomers have long known that a year is about 365.24 days? Because the earth once had a 360 day year, and something changed. The ancients remembered the 360 day year. But they forgot how the year changed, or even that it changed, for centuries after the event.
Asteroid makes case for hydroplate theory
The near-earth asteroid 2012 DA14 makes the case for the Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood, for a simple reason. No asteroid, if it formed in a belt between Mars and Jupiter, should fly so close to earth. Not unless it came from earth to begin with.
Mercury ice should have blown away in meteor showers
The Mercury ice excites everyone who hears about it. After all, people forget that even Mercury has areas of endless shadow cold enough to hold ice. But they smugly assume that the ice would sublimate slowly, if at all, even over billions of years. If the ice rested quietly, and nothing disturbed it, then it would stay, even that long. But it does not rest quietly. Meteors of all sizes bombard it all the time. In millions of years, and certainly billions, those meteors would have blown the ice away.
Mercury ice must have come from earth
Almost everyone agrees that comets and water-rich asteroids delivered lots of ice to Mercury. But the Mercury ice must have come from Earth. It cannot have come from anywhere else.
Science and the Bible – Part 3
In parts one and two of this series, I discussed the extraordinary biblical references to revelations of science. They included references to the earth being spherical, thermodynamics, water springs in the ocean, recesses of the deep and the morning stars singing. These references are truly extraordinary when one considers that they were made from 300 years to over 4000 years before they were discovered by modern men of science. More extraordinary still, these references mark only a small percentage of the scientific statements the Bible makes.
Panspermia? Really?
Panspermia — the idea that life is seeding itself everywhere in the universe — is suddenly popular again. The finding of the “stuff of life” in meteorites has made it popular. But panspermia assumes that those meteorites came from space and merely fell to earth.
Science in the Bible part 2
The point of this series is to cite specific instances where the scientific claims made in the Bible are well ahead of their time and have proved to be more reliable that the always-changing theories of men. All too often creationists find themselves defending against the dogmas of the day. Those dogmas, with time, prove to be either hoaxes & frauds, built on faulty assumptions, or are eventually invalidated. Exposing the reliable scientific statements made within the Bible is more inspiring than our defensively held positions. Frankly, we seem to spend more time defending against the theories of men than proving the science in the Bible. After all, who can be a more reliable source about the science of creation than the Creator Himself?
