Why the Big Bang Ain't So Crazy of an Idea

The prospect of an explosion happening from out of nowhere while creating all existence sounds hard to believe.

And it should be. That's your skepticism kicking in . . . and that's a good thing.

Yep. I said it. Skepticism of the Big Bang is a good thing.

Don't simply believe in the Big Bang. Understand the premise and then make a judgment for yourself.

So, why do so many scientists buy into such a strange idea?

Well . . .

The light our eyes see is not all there is to light.

When light goes through a prism, it is dispersed into a spectrum. And the spectrum of light can revel the chemical elements found within the source that is emitting the light.

Still with me?

Spectral analysis of stars show that all the elements found on Earth are also found in Sol, our sun.

Nearly all of us have heard about E = mc², which is Einstein's famous equation. But what about the implications of this deceptively simple, yet powerful equation?

Matter can be turned into energy, and energy back into matter. Stars compress hydrogen gas so much that they smash into each other at nearly the speed of light. This causes the hydrogen to fuse together to form helium. As this happens, immense energy that gives off a bright light is released. And then the helium atoms are further fused into heaver elements, producing even more energy still. The hotness and luminosity of our sun (and any other star for that matter) comes from this constant reaction of nuclear fusion.

Through this process, stars create the elements found all around us.

When a star experiences a supernova, all those elements get scattered throughout the cosmos. The released gases also tend to spark off the formation of a new star.

When one star dies and another is born, the elements of the Universe are formed. When planets, asteroids, and comets formulate out of the gaseous eddies left over from star formation, all the elements of the periodic table will already be in place.

If a star can form the elements from scratch, what could an infinitesimal release of energy produce?


Bell Labs back in the 1960's was working on a project with satellite transmissions. But, they had a nagging problem. They kept getting static interference which they couldn't explain.

And that static was jackin' up their experimentations and stuff.

Simultaneously and serendipitously, a pair of scientists had a conjecture that if a star had the ability to form the raw materials of existence, then perhaps the Universe itself came forth from an immense release of energy. In that release, the building blocks of matter could have formed. The mathematics (which I'm sure I couldn't understand) added up-- with the exception of one major problem. An energy release that big would not have cooled down completely-- not even after billions of years. So, the mathematics predicted that some sort of background radiation should exist.

But, they don't see none.

Oh well, time to move on to another hypothesis.

That is until these scientists happened to hear about out what was going on at Bell labs. That static that was jackin' up the Bell Labs experiments-- that was the cooling radiation from a really big release of energy. Something like a . . . um, how would you say . . . a Big Bang?

Those guys got a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Hey, it's still okay to be skeptical. It's okay to remain skeptical about the Big Bang.

But at least realize the Big Bang ain't so crazy of an idea-- even if one day physicists realize the idea was completely wrong.

The Atheist Test: Test Four & Five

If you'd like to see a copy of the Atheist Test for yourself, you may visit the following link: The Atheist Test pamphlet

To review any of the previous posts in this series, follow any of the links below:

The Atheist Test
The Atheist Test: Test One
The Atheist Test: Test Two & Three


No Gold in China

This portion of the test will assess your knowledge of gold in China. But first, the test is prefaced with a short explanation concerning "absolute statements". The author begins by claiming that the statement "There is no God" is known as an absolute statement. And furthermore, he argues that in order for an absolute statement to be true one must have absolute knowledge while making such statements. By this, he means to say that one must be omnipotent to make correct absolute statements.

Then he gives another example by saying, "There is no gold in China".

One would require absolute knowledge of China to know for sure if thar's gold in them thar hills.

This could possibly be the author's most flawed argument.

Why?

Because . . . if one must have absolute knowledge in order to declare that "There is no God", then . . .

wait for it . . .

wait for it . . .

One needs to have absolute knowledge to declare that "There is a God".

And furthermore, to declare that God's name is YHWH and that he can only be accessed through Jesus Christ alone would require absolute knowledge as well.

And also, one must have absolute knowledge to declare that the Bible is God's word and the claims are completely true.

The same goes for one's interpretation of the Bible as being absolutely correct when compared to any contradictory interpretation.

Thus, one would also need absolute knowledge to make statements such as "Thor is not a real God". Or, YHWH is the only true and living God".

The author cannot have his cake and eat it, too.

Having said that, let's take test four:


Test Four


What do I need to have for that statement [there is no gold in China] to be true?


__ A. No knowledge of China.
__ B. Partial knowledge of China.
__ C. Absolute knowledge of China.


The author asserts that "C" is the right answer.


Well, I can have my own little test right here:


My Test


What do I need to have to make the absolute statement "There is a God"?


__ A. No knowledge of the Universe.
__ B. Partial knowledge of the Universe.
__ C. Absolute knowledge of the Universe.
__ D. An ulterior motive.


Some may choose "D" as the correct answer. But, keep in mind that not everyone who pushes religious belief in God has an ulterior motive. No doubt the religious world has plenty of charlatans and confidence men (and women). But sincere and honest people can be found within the religious world.

In that vein, I will also assert that "C" is the correct answer. Also, since the author insisted that "C" was the correct answer to his test, I'll will say that "C" is the correct answer in my test as well.


More on Absolute Knowledge



Now the author attempts to further his argument about absolute statements. He says openly that these statements require omniscience. He then suggests that even if you had one percent of all knowledge of all the Universe, you must realize that God could exist somewhere within that realm of your ignorance.

I agree with that last part. And that's the nature of agnosticism. I will agree that God could exist somewhere in that realm of information of which I am ignorant. But, the theist is also bound by the same problem once this argument is introduced. Somewhere within the theist's realm of ignorance could rest information that proves God is an artifice of our social and cognitive development by way of evolution. An atheist feels quite confident of this idea already, while an agnostic generally finds this notion quite compelling. Agnostics often lean towards the same conclusions as atheists. However, the agnostic still takes into account that possible margin for error-- even when the possibility of error might be somewhat small.


Agnostics Think Buildings Don't have Builders


Now, for my favorite part. The author follows with the argument that an agnostic person cannot be an atheist. Also, he argues that agnosticism is no different from declaring that one can never know if a building ever had a builder.

Oh, and by the way, the agnostic is standing there looking at the building in question while making such a statement.

Agnostics and atheists may not be the same. The author finally makes an interesting point! I may have to change my label from atheist to agnostic as a result.

I think I'll officially label myself as an atheistic leaning agnostic.

Even though the author has made a good point, he doesn't waist time going astray. Agnosticism is about admitting the lack of knowledge or information. A good agnostic will admit that enough information is not available to make "absolute" statements. But, an agnostic person isn't necessarily agnostic about everything. Not every agnostic will not look at a house and wonder if it had a builder or a construction crew. Ample evidence from every day experience shows us that artifacts require human hands.

And here is where the author revisits a previous argument-- everything with order must have a designer. This may be true with everything people invent. Again, an artifact requires human hands; however, the processes of nature and the formation of our Universe as we know it may not need a designer.

Remember, "everything with order must have a designer" is an absolute statement. Does the author claim to have absolute knowledge of everything?

Generally, an agnostic simply realizes that the insistent claims of God's existence could be flawed. After all, God doesn't seem to come forward and make himself overtly apparent to everyone. Nor does he make his preferences clear as to which religious faith he wants everyone to accept. Science doesn't disprove God, as I've said several times before. But, science seems to show that the Universe has evolved in a way that doesn't quite correlate with the claims of mainstream religious texts and their followers.

What's an agnostic to do?


Test Five


The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:


__ A. Intelligent
__ B. A fool
__ C. Has an ulterior motive


The only purpose of test five is to misrepresent agnosticism by making it look stupid.

But to me, agnosticism is an intelligent and honest option under these circumstances.

An agnostic mindset endeavors to be open minded by recognizing the limits of human knowledge. Yet, the agnostic mindset still continues collecting more knowledge.

The method of good scientific practice seems very much like this, in my opinion.

And I also think that someone who endeavors to achieve intellectual honesty is less likely to be full of ulterior motives.

So, can we say that the author of the Atheist Test pamphlet is without ulterior motive?

The Atheist Test: Test Two & Three

If you want to see the pamphlet for yourself click the link: The Atheist Test Pamphlet

This post will deal with the second and third "tests" from the Atheist Test pamphlet.

TEST TWO

A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

As I've already mentioned in my previous post, The Atheist Test: Test One, the author resorts to underhanded persuasion methods at times. However, in the test quoted above, I cannot blame him too much for making the following argument:

Complex things demand a designer or maker.

This argument is compelling, I admit.

But consider again Natural Selection and the formation of the heavenly bodies. Complex things could possibly come about without an intelligent mind.

Humans are unique among all life. The human mind can invent. Other animals may build and use tools. But to invent something is uniquely human.

Does that mean we are made in God's image?

If God made us or set evolution into motion, then yes, I suppose so.

But evolution doesn't seem to require an intelligent mind. Rather, the intelligent mind seems to have evolved through Natural Selection.

Perhaps we humans think that everything complex requires a creator because we are creators ourselves. We impose personification upon everything around us. Cartoons have talking birds, rabbits, or insects with human personalities. People gaze up at the moon and see a shadow of a human face. People throughout history have worshiped the Sun, the planets, and the stars as though they had human personalities.

And God seems quite human, too. He gets angry. He loves. He expresses regret. He gets jealous. And people often depict God as a man sitting on a throne with long white hair and a long white beard. Even when God is depicted as being an invisible spirit, he seems human.

Is that because God made us like him, or because we imagined him like us?

The ultimate problem with Test Two is that the author totally dismissed the possibility that natural phenomena can happen automatically. Again, the author leads the reader to assume the notion of Evolution theory and Big Bang theory is utterly foolish. But the evidence around us says that these two theories at least deserve some consideration.

TEST THREE

A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?
___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?
___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?
___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Here are some more sleazy persuasion tactics. I keep saying this because psychology research has found that when a person is coaxed to answer "yes" to the first question in a series, that person is more inclined to answer "yes" to every other question that follows.

For example, lets say a sales person calls and asks you the following:

Do you have any children in your home?
(assume you're a parent and answer "yes")

Do you care about the mental development of your children?
(yes, of course)

Do you believe that reading to your children is very important?
(of course, you dumb ass! why are you asking me this?)

I'm so glad you asked, because I have here these wonderful books designed to accelerate your child's reading abilities. Perfect for ages blah, blah, blah . . . Wouldn't you want your child to have books like these in his or her library-- books that will help your child become an excellent reader in the years to come?
(why, it would be dumb to answer no. so, yes.)

So, will you order one of these books today to enrich you're child's future?
(aw, damn. alright, I'll order some. I'd feel stupid saying no to books I just admitted were good for my children.)

My son pulled this trick on my when he was only in kindergarten! The conversation when like this:

Son: Daddy, don't you care about my artwork?
Me: Why of course son? Why would you ask a thing like that?
Son: Well, do you like the pictures I draw?
Me: Yes son. You draw very well.
Son: Well, if you care about my artwork, why don't you buy me some more markers. Please . . .

Keep in mind that my son had lost the last five packs of markers that I bought him. So all of a sudden, I felt duped at the way he played on my parental tenderness. But this is what persuasive people sometimes do.

Yeah, he eventually got the markers. And my son lost that set, too.

Grrrrr . . .

Anyway, I digress.

Many people are swayed by this line of questioning. Sales people use it often. Pay attention to the next few times someone makes a sales pitch at you. Listen to the questions they ask and see if they are phrased in such a way that they solicit a "yes" answer. This happens in sales literature, too.

These tests use this same tactic. The questions aren't designed to draw out common sense thinking. These questions draw only on proven tactics of influence in order to manipulate how you think.

That's why I keep using the word sleazy.

And that's why I feel driven to compose my commentary on this pamphlet.

So then, I do agree that from the atom to the universe there is order.

Um, but I don't think we can say that about quantum physics; Stuff smaller than the atom. That's a whole new world which has physicists baffled. Total chaos going on down there in quantum land!

Did it all happen by accident? Maybe. But not over night. Who knows how long things were brewing before the Big Bang might have happened. This universe may simply be a set up for the next bang that might come along.

I like the way question "C" is phrased: Or, must there have been . . .

The author is being manipulative again.

Or he found a really good sales copywriter to help him with the wording of his pamphlet.

Fifty oranges in rows of ten

Now, the author challenges you to believe that someone could drop 50 oranges and they fall to the floor in perfect rows of ten.

Of course you won't see that happen. That's why he asked.

But, the author implies that astronomers and evolutionists claim that the universe and life began in this way. Existence just fell in place in the same way that 50 oranges would fall into perfect rows of ten after being dropped.

You do know that biologists recently developed sperm cells from stem cells, right?

Did you know that all the building blocks for life can be found floating in outer space, between all the stars?

Humans could possibly be Mother Nature's chemistry experiment. (And there I go; I'm even projecting human qualities upon chemistry by calling it Mother Nature.)

Chemistry and biology may only need enough time and the right conditions to do amazing things.

I can't say the same for dropping 50 oranges into perfect rows of ten.

Or maybe one can. Any chaos theory experts out there?

What Does Mars Have to Do With Free Will?

Probably nothing. But here's where my mind went-- logical or not.

I recently saw an article in Scientific American that explains why the ubiquitous, thin layer of Martian dust dons a red-orange color. The Sun’s ultraviolet rays produce a chemical reaction against the thin topsoil of Mars that results in transforming the soil into a certain kind of rust

Mars has a scant atmosphere compared with Earth. The ionization process that rusts the topsoil of Mars also causes constant seepage of the atmosphere into space.

 The chemical composition of Martian soil and thin atmosphere suggest that the red planet has lost about 90% of its atmosphere over time.

Infrared photos of Earth show that hydrogen is burning off from our planet and evaporating into space due to the same ultraviolet light beaming towards our planet.

This phenomenon implies that Earth is headed for very similar conditions as the other planets in our solar system. Earth may become a twin to Venus several billion years from now. This possibility also implies that a lot of time has already passed since the planets have formed. And this also implies that a lot of time will continue to go by just as before.

Other planets had a thick atmosphere long into the past. Maybe these planets could have supported life at one time. Yet, the atmosphere leaked away or changed into a volatile environment. Earth is not immune; leakage is ever so slowly happening now.

We seem to be living on a planet that will not continue to support life as we understand it—regardless of how green we may try to live.

If nothing stops the process, Earth will no longer be the unique planet in our solar system.

But other processes are going on that will eventually turn Earth into a wasteland.

The Sun is due to nova billions of years from now. Other stars have already undergone a nova within the frame of our observation. This implies again that a lot of time has gone by and will continue to go by.

Our Sun is no exception if nothing stops the process of our star going through its nova phase.

Here’s another process to consider: why do we have an asteroid belt? Is it just for decoration, or did a former planet have a really, really bad day?

And one of the remnants of that poor planet could get hurled into our way in the future.

Two asteroid belts! Cool! (OK, probably not.)

I realize that all this can sound rather bleak. Regardless, I still find astronomy and cosmology very fascinating and beautiful. But, I have to accept the bleakness with it as well. That’s very much our universe. Life is coupled with death. Love coupled with pain. Happiness and joy coupled with sadness and loss. We must accept all these things together.

I also accept a beautiful and elegant universe that promises a bleak and entropic ending.

Perhaps I should apply this same thinking to God—a benevolent being creates a perfect, yet seemingly doomed universe. I must accept the good with the bad.

Concerning the argument of free will-- I will admit that the argument sounds reasonable when used to explain why evil exists in the world. To me at least.

At first, at least.

But when I contrast the argument of free will against the backdrop of modern cosmology, I’m no longer personally convinced by the free will argument.

God created everything like this, yes? Or has man’s sin in the garden cursed creation to the extent that even the planets have become either barren wastelands or volatile, toxic environments?

Somehow, the initial sensibility that I hear in the argument of free will deteriorates for me when I consider how our universe seems to make an inexorable spiral into oblivion.

One could say that Jesus will come before all this bleakness takes place. But the stars and planets in the sky seem to testify of a different outcome in my view.

A Blast from the Past

I dunno. I just thought this was neat.

Proponents of C-decay will disagree with this article, however.

A Blast from the Past


Enjoy.

Six Silly Sayings

I recently ran across some material that made an attempt to prove God's existence in six points.

I will share each of the six points. Following each point, I will give my opinion about why I think these are weak arguments. I'm not saying that my rebuttals will disprove God -- but these arguments are not strong enough to prove that God exists.

1. Our planet's complexity points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

My rebuttal: Science shows us that at the very least the Biblical account of creation is a myth. Science proves the Earth is billions of years old, not just thousands or a few million per the Biblical account. If God did create us, he used evolution to do it.

But more importantly, the perceptions and assumptions we humans have concerning the "obvious" are often flawed in critical ways. We assume that everything with structure needs a builder because we must build and design. That assumption does not have to be true for our universe.

For example, observe the image to the right:

The two lines that run across the star burst pattern appear bent; however, they are parallel lines. If you could print out this image (or one similar) and check the lines with a ruler -- you would observe that they are indeed straight lines. Our perceptions can be fooled. We assume the lines are bowed at first glance. But upon further inspection, the lines are actually straight lines.

A complex universe and complex life doesn't mean a creator is necessary. Evolution is a complex process that took millions of years -- yet few people want to say that God created us this way.

2. The complexity of the human brain shows a higher intelligence behind it.

My rebuttal: This second point is really just restating of the first point. I will only add here that evolution shows us that our brains developed over a painstaking process over millions of years. Biologists have found caves where no sunlight reaches inside them. Therein, you can find a pond that has formed from a stream of water that flows inside. Fish swim around in the ponds. Since there is no light, these fish have no eyes! They only have nodes or bulbs that have formed. Biologists surmise that the ancestors of these fish had eyes. After millions of years of swimming in the dark, natural selection decided not to bother forming the eyes in these fish any longer.

Is that intelligent design?

3. Natural causes and chance are insufficient explanations for our existence.

My rebuttal: This third point is barely different from the first two points. Evolution, again, shows us that our course of development is left to a process of natural selection. Perhaps this isn't pure chance, but the survivors and offspring in any given species continues to thrive as long as they are well suited for the environment in which they live.

Also, scientists have found that when non-organic elements found in asteroids are mixed with non-organic compounds found in earth a chemical reaction happens and organic compounds are created. Just like taking oxygen and hydrogen and putting them together -- you get water. Or, just in the same way that you take sodium and chloride and form table salt. Asteroids pelted the earth during it's early formation. Life easily could have formed from this natural occurrence.

Besides, saying that God created everything is insufficient as well. We still have questions. Who made God? Saying that he always existed is no different from simply saying that the matter and material of this universe has always existed.

4. The enormously vast number of people who are passionately convinced that there is a God must be ignored should you say God does not exist.

My rebuttal: Galileo Galilei had to ignore the enormously vast number of people who were passionately convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. Nuff said.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

My rebuttal: You cannot say that this pursuit is true for everyone because you have not met everyone to ask them if God has sought him or her out. Besides, why is God so subtle if he is pursuing us?!?!?! Also, since so many people have a vast difference of opinion in who God really is, (because he's so subtle in his "pursuit") how can you say the same God is calling a Muslim to pray when at the same time he calls a Christian to prayer? Perhaps God only exists because we still have questions about ourselves. The more questions we answer with science, the less we need God and scripture to explain everything.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.

My rebuttal:

The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth
The Bible's Buried Secrets
The Hidden Book of the Bible

And that's just for starters . . .

I'm not declaring that I've disproved God's existence in my rebuttals. However, I am saying that the six arguments offered for God's existence are not sound and cannot prove his existence, either.

A Little Perspective

I've had the pleasure of receiving several great recommendations for short videos, books, and documentaries over the past week or two. I have a lot to soak in; there is much to see. I still haven't had the chance to follow up on all the suggestions yet, but I am eager to do so.

One short video so far has truly impressed me and has opened my perspective concerning this planet we all share.

Carl Sagan provides an amazing perspective concerning our existence in a short video called The Pale Blue Dot. Watch it. If my link doesn't work, simply visit YouTube and search for:

The Pale Blue Dot -- full speech

I found the film humbling and touching. Somewhat saddening and quite sobering; yet, somehow the film was still very inspiring and hopeful all at the same time.

And I must say . . . people who argue that morality cannot exist without god would be challenged after gaining this new and awesome perspective. After seeing where and what we really are in this universe, I can't help but to have the desire to cherish life. And not only my life, but the life of every other human being around me.

Isn't that sentiment morality enough?

Celestia

I had the pleasure of learning about a free program named Celestia. The program renders models of the solar system with great accuracy. You can choose a point in time and view a depiction of how certain events would appear from space or from the surface of a planet.

The program is very accurate . . . but not necessarily perfect. But, hey, I'm no astronomer or physicist, so as far as I'm concerned, it's good enough for my purposes.

Celestia can depict events in real time or you can re-play time and events in backwards motion. You can speed time up or traverse light years across the galaxy in an instant.

Shortly after learning about Celestia, I saw a picture of Saturn taken by the spacecraft Cassini. Then, I got an idea . . . why not plug in the date and time of Cassini's take off and watch it's journey. Then, I can compare the photo's perspective with Celestia's simulated perspective.

Cassini's trip to Saturn took seven years! So, I had to speed the time up a lot. But lo and behold, when the program reached the time stamp of that picture I saw . . . the perspective was nearly the same!

Impressive. Most impressive.

This universe is so big and vast. Space is dreadfully beautiful and terribly awesome after letting the concepts soak in and take root. Just as atoms and cells make up who we are, our planets and moons are like atoms and cells to this great universe.

No wonder we have religion and god. We need something to explain all of this -- this inexplicable wonder and vastness that so captivates us and frightens us.

If you're any sort of star gazer, download Celestia. This wonderful program is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. If Celestia doesn't run well after your first install it, try installing older versions of Celestia until one works. Also, consider making a quick check to see if your PC can meet the system requirements.

And remember . . . this program is free!

Blackened

Science seems to really be the the mortal enemy of faith. Many Christians try to marry faith and science, but they just don't go together. Faith is trusting in what hasn't come to be yet. Sure, maybe you have a promise from God, but that's all you have – trust in his track record from the Bible, from your life experiences, and other people's faith testimonies.

Science needs proof. Test it. Research it. Touch it. Observe it. Record it. Run the numbers and see if there really is a significant difference. Then, maybe you can call it a theory.

Then after that, check back with us . . . we'll let you know later if we think it's true . . . after we test it some more.

Many Christians don't like to follow through with the full implications of science, yet they want to use it when it suites their point. And don't forget about logic. Logic is akin to science – perhaps the heart of the scientific method itself.

Christians use logic when it suites, too. But following the full implications of logic is contradictory to faith. Faith, again, is trusting in what hasn't had any direct evidence. Logic seeks truth through weeding out weak arguments that have no foundation. What gives an argument a true foundation?

Evidence. Hard cold evidence.

That's why people always say that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are beyond finding out. His ways aren't our ways. In other words, God doesn't work in the realms of logic all the time. That's why we need faith – to trust the things that God does and allows which sometimes seem quite illogical, contradictory, confusing, and unjust.

History slapped me in the face again much like in my previous blog post. But this time, Science joined in, too.

It was like a nasty pimp-slap.

Galileo asserted that the heavenly bodies – including Earth – were all round and that the sun was actually the center of the solar system.

Well Duh!

Well, duh, nothin' . . . . 'cause back then, that idea was heresy. Galileo's observations and mathematics backed his claims with solid evidence. But publishing his findings only earned him house arrest during the latter years of his life. And his arrest was enforced by the Catholic Church!

Say what?!

The Church world back in Galileo's day was the authority on faith and science. And, the Church world said that the Earth was flat* and was the center of the Universe! Why? Because the church world of that time period thought the Bible said so!

Was Christendom wrong to believe the Bible inferred a flat Earth?

Biblical cosmology becomes more and more of a fantasy as we learn more about the physical world, the laws of physics, and the Universe around us.

Physics tells us that the universe must be older than the Bible declares. Either physics contradicts itself or the Bible does. Take your pick.

Admittedly, being raised as a Christian, that was not a hard choice to make at the time.
Clearly, science was wrong.

But, I always wondered how Satan was able to take Jesus to that high place and show him all the kingdoms of the world in a single moment.

Maybe somebody thought the Earth was flat.

So then, the “circle of the Earth” – as Job called it – wasn't a globe after all. It was a flat pancake!

But . . . but . . . but . . . the Bible wouldn't ever imply that! God made the world! He made the Heavens and the Earth. He knew what he was doing! He knew the Earth wasn't flat when he made it.

He knew what he was doing when he took the firmament and partitioned the waters of the ocean from the waters above in the sky.

Pay attention to that description in the first chapter of Genesis. Read it again, slowly. The Earth was a super dome! A flat area for the land. The dome of the sky was covered with a firmament that allowed rain to drip through from the waters above.

Say . . . if you didn't know that the sky went to outer space and that the sun's light reflecting off of our atmosphere made the sky look blue . . . . what might you think about all that blueness?


Did you say, “water”?

I heard a small child ask once, “can lightning hit the moon”?

Sounds silly until you realize that a child has no accurate perception of the heavenly bodies. At least, not until they finally start school and take physical science lessons. But why shouldn't lightning hit the moon? From a child's mind the moon is embedded in the firmament of the Earth – just like the sun and stars.

That's how the ancients thought. Mankind generally saw the Earth and sky in those terms until men like Galileo came along.

Ooohhh . . . so that's why Revelations says the stars will fall to the Earth like figs from a tree! The ancient world thought the stars were in the sky like low hanging fruit on a tree! The perspective they had allowed for the stars to fall from the sky and litter the ground.

The sky can peel back like a scroll. The dome of the Earth can be yanked back like a cover or torn away like an ancient parchment scroll.

Jesus can ride the clouds and every eye can see him. However, not because all the news channels of the world will report on this awesome spectacle. Because, when you live on a flat Earth – everyone can look up at the same time and see him in the sky!

Man, if we just could've kept building that tower of Babel, we could have burst through the dome of the Earth and saw God, touched the sun, and tickled the moon and stars. That's why God had to stop all of their fun.

But, now we know better. All of the heavenly bodies are so very far away. None of it is mounted within our atmosphere or "firmament" like the Bible declares throughout it's text.

This was quite problematic.

How could scripture misrepresent the nature of the world if the Creator divinely authored the Bible?!

Then, all the arguments of the skeptics started caving in on my faith. I had to put forth a conscience effort to brace my beliefs and hold them in place. I didn't give in just yet, but boy oh boy, I sure had some more investigation to do now!

And speaking of the heavenly bodies . . . lets take a look at our sun. An awesome display of power and energy. And through science, we now know how to apply the same principles that make the sun glow.

Nuclear weapons.

The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor. Hydrogen fuels it just like our hydrogen bombs – which are wimpy and picayune replicas of the sun – in principle at least. That's why you had better wear that sunscreen this summer! That radiation will burn your skin. That's why we have the Aurora lights in the sky. The radiation of the sun is bouncing off of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. That's the other reason why astronauts wear space suits; Space is radioactive. But why doesn't the sun explode into a huge mushroom cloud like our little baby sun-bombs? The sun generates a massive magnetic field that keeps it all from going off like a huge intergalactic nuke! So, the sun is a nuclear reactor keeping itself in a tight furnace-like ball.

The scientific community estimates that the sun started out with enough Hydrogen to burn for 10 billion years. Our bright beauty seems to have about 5 billion years of juice left.


So, in about 5 billion years from now, the sun's core will run out of Hydrogen and flare up in a final burst. The sun will start to balloon and scorch the Earth – eventually swallowing it whole and melting it away. Then, our solar system will forever be covered in night as the sun snuffs out like a candle smothered by melted wax.

Regardless of whether Metallica meant nuclear war or the sun's apocalyptic burn-out, their metal song, Blackened is frighteningly backed by science. You can click the link and check out the lyrics or hear the song on their official web site.


But, the Bible also says that the Earth will be melted away with a fervent heat. Maybe that proves the Bible is prophetic. Well, they've got the “scorched Earth” part right. But not because of prophesy. Physics gives us hard evidence of what's in store for the Earth's future.

Sounds morbid, huh? But I'll tell you this . . . I'd rather be nuked once and for all by the sun 5 billion years from now than to live out eternity in a smoldering bottomless pit that flows with a lake of fire.

* Since this post, I've come to realize that people in Galileo's day did know that the Earth was round and not flat. However, they still thought the Earth was the center of the solar system as well as the Universe. And that still got Galileo into a whole lot of trouble.

I cannot say the same for the Biblical writers, however. They really seemed to believe the Earth was flat.