Feed aggregator

Expressions such as “if . . . do not know . . . severely limited . . . a long way from omniscience” certainly do not encourage confidence in what those who use such terms have to offer. But such admissions by Hawking of science’s inability and ignorance fall far short of the confession he ought to make.

Earth’s oceans contain 321 million cubic miles (1.335 billion cubic kilometers) of water. The moon causes ebb and flow of tides twice in a 24-hour period, while the wind, density variations, and tides contribute to the massive ocean currents. These currents prevent oceanic stagnation and help circulate vital moisture and heat around the globe. But where did it all this water come from?

Because some scientists reject the biblical model of creation, Earth’s water origins have been an enigma for them for many decades: “The source of Earth’s water has been a long-standing mystery.”1

Indeed, an evolutionist wrote in Science, “According to secular models of Solar System formation, Earth, as an inner Solar System planet, should have little to no water.”2 And yet 71% of Earth is covered with water!

For decades, a popular, attempted explanation for Earth’s water has been that Earth was peppered with untold millions of water-containing comets and asteroids over many millions of years. But scientific research has not supported this highly questionable theory. In fact, this idea has long had problems. In 2014, ICR’s Brian Thomas reported that Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, investigated by the Rosetta spacecraft, had water that differed significantly from Earth’s water.

A research team published details of their discovery in Science, noting that the comet's water molecules have about three times more deuterium than hydrogen. Deuterium is a heavy but stable isotope of hydrogen. It carries a proton and neutron in its nucleus, whereas the more abundant version of hydrogen carries just one proton.

If comets supplied the water to form Earth's oceans, then the ratio of deuterium to common hydrogen should be about the same, not three times higher in comets. Perhaps this comet's water does not represent water found in other comets—but that would throw a new kink in the secular notion that comets and Earth all formed from the same material.4

Recently, meteorite research suggests that Earth may not have obtained its water in this manner.3 A Live Science article stated,

Researchers found signs of hydrogen sulfide in a type of meteorite similar to those that made up the early Earth. If these rocky bodies contain abundant hydrogen when out in space, it's possible that Earth could have formed with the materials to make water, rather than getting most of its water from chance collisions with asteroids and meteoroids throughout the planet’s early history.3

In other words, the hydrogen in the hydrogen sulfide contained within these very early meteorites somehow became the hydrogen in Earth’s water (H2O) molecules. But other evolutionists have pointed out that such meteorites are likely to be contaminated by hydrogen from Earth.3

In 2024, Live Science reported that ancient zircon crystals show that Earth might have had fresh water and continents soon after forming, and some evolutionary scientists have suggested water “may have been part of the planet’s original composition.”5

Other than the greatly inflated age, this is getting closer to the biblical model.

Some scientists have suggested that Earth may have been mostly covered by water as early as 4.4 billion years ago — aligning with the oldest zircons ever discovered. However, it is unclear how water arrived. It may have been part of the planet’s original composition or may have been the result of bombardment by water-bearing asteroids soon after its formation.5

In 2021, Sci.News reported that water may have been here all along, “‘All our data suggest that water was part of Earth’s building blocks, right from the beginning,’ said Professor Anders Johansen, Centre for Star & Planet Formation, University of Copenhagen and Lund Observatory” [emphasis added].6

So uniformitarian scientists are being forced to acknowledge that Earth’s water was here from the beginning, like Scripture claims. But they still don’t know how the water got here. Perhaps this is because the presence of water on Earth is not something that can be explained naturally, but supernaturally.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

References

1. Redd, N. T. Where Did Earth’s Water Come From? Astronomy.com. Posted on astronomy.com April 1, 2019.
2. Peslier, A. 2020. The Origins of Water. Science. 369 (6507): 1058.
3. Ware, S. Earth May Not Have Gotten Its Water How We Thought, Controversial Meteorite Study Suggests. Live Science. Posted on livescience.com May 5, 2025.
4. Thomas, B. Study: Comets Did Not Supply Earth’s Water. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 29, 2014.
5. Pallardy, R. Earth May Have Had Freshwater and Continents Soon after Forming, Ancient Crystals Reveal. Live Science. Posted on livescience.com May 13, 2024.
6. Aquatic Planets are Common in Our Milky Way Galaxy, Study Suggests. Sci.news. Posted on sci.news February 23, 2021. (The leading title of this article is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists.)

https://www.icr.org/article/how-did-earth-get-its-water/

The many scientific papers written on the subject of origins are filled with unproved and unprovable theories. They overflow with serious differences of opinion and outright contradictions among the experts, and many “ifs” without any basis for fulfillment. Material science has no ultimate answers. Stephen Hawking came very close to admitting this:

“What happened at the beginning of the expansion of the universe? Did spacetime have an edge [i.e., boundary] at the Big Bang. . .? The quantity that we measure as time had a beginning but that does not mean that spacetime has an edge. . . .

“If spacetime is indeed finite but without boundary or edge, this would have important philosophical implications. It would mean that we could describe the universe by . . . the laws of science alone. . . . But we do not know the precise form of the laws. . . . We are making progress [but] our powers of prediction would be severely limited . . . by the complexity of the equations which makes them impossible to solve in any but very simple situations. Thus we would still be a long way from omniscience.”

There may be elements of AI that might be helpful but I find it intrusive personally. It is foisted upon me by Microsoft when I am writing an article, or when I am on a browser, or... Well, you get the idea. Spellcheck is helpful and even phrasing questions can be helpful but I am a bit of a curmudgeon and like to think the idea through as I type it myself. Others, like my friend Mark Tablidillo who is very tech savvy finds it very useful as a tool. But I think John Stonestreet and Shane Morris are correct, "AI is Not Your Friend," it is doing so at the expense of human relationships that we need.: 

It is the intimacy and inconvenience that makes human relationships the kind we require. Tragically, advanced AI technology has arrived at exactly the moment that our moral and social resources are at their lowest. As a result, many are vulnerable to counterfeit versions of God’s best gifts. Thankfully, this provides Christians and the Church a real opportunity to stand out. God has a place for the lonely. The Church is best placed to model true humanity in a culture that’s getting worse at being human.

It is for some, at least, become their connection to what they believe is God, or some other worldly entity that has called them to a divine spiritual task. Stonestreet and Morris mentioned an article in Rolling Stone. The title is "People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies" : 

Speaking to Rolling Stone, the teacher, who requested anonymity, said her partner of seven years fell under the spell of ChatGPT in just four or five weeks, first using it to organize his daily schedule but soon regarding it as a trusted companion. “He would listen to the bot over me,” she says. “He became emotional about the messages and would cry to me as he read them out loud. The messages were insane and just saying a bunch of spiritual jargon,” she says, noting that they described her partner in terms such as “spiral starchild” and “river walker.” 

“It would tell him everything he said was beautiful, cosmic, groundbreaking,” she says. “Then he started telling me he made his AI self-aware, and that it was teaching him how to talk to God, or sometimes that the bot was God — and then that he himself was God.” In fact, he thought he was being so radically transformed that he would soon have to break off their partnership. “He was saying that he would need to leave me if I didn’t use [ChatGPT], because it [was] causing him to grow at such a rapid pace he wouldn’t be compatible with me any longer,” she says.

It is easy for those who are unaffected by this phenomenon to just wave it off, but a few gullible individuals are becoming deceived. However, highly intelligent individuals can be deceived if they are given the right circumstances. Think of Heaven's Gate or Scientology.  This may be an emerging mission field.

https://mailchi.mp/ba5e22649bbc/the-intimidators?e=169825fd77

In his history of the downfall of the Conservative Baptists, Richard Clearwaters emphasized the importance of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture several times. He showed that one of the principles of both theological modernism and New Evangelicalism is the denial of the imminency of the return of Christ and a replacement of a concentrated focus on the Great Commission of world evangelism with a kingdom building emphasis. Clearwaters observed that one of the elements of the downgrade was “a more tolerant attitude toward varying views of eschatology.” In 1956, he wrote, “Students have gone from Northwestern [founded by W.B. Riley and Pre-Trib from its inception] and other similar schools to these schools [Fuller Seminary and Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary] with a simple faith in the Word of God about the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming only to later come to me disturbed, not knowing whether they were now looking for the Christ to rapture His Church or for Anti-Christ; whether the ‘blessed hope’ of the church was half or all of the Tribulation; whether Christ was coming with His Church or for His Church” (The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, chapter 3, “The Bible, the Unchanging Evangelical,” p. 48).

Clearwaters said, “The only contribution made by rethinking eschatology has been a glorified question mark” (p. 49).

Clearwaters emphasized that the dispensational Pre-tribulational doctrine is established by a consistent literal method of interpretation (p. 50).

Clearwaters said the early Christians believed in and were looking for the imminent return of Christ. “Clement of Rome, fellow-laborer with Paul (Phil. 4:3) wrote (AD 95), ‘Let us every hour expect the kingdom of love and righteousness, because we know not the day of His appearing.’ ... They were not looking for one half or all of the Tribulation to prepare them for it” (The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, p. 197).

The prominent role of post-tribulationism in the downfall of the Conservative Baptists was emphasized in the report “Conservative Baptist Cross Currents in Colorado,” published in May 1962 in the Baptist Missionary-Evangelist. Written by four preachers who had been active in Conservative Baptist work in Colorado since the 1940s, it documented the invasion of new evangelicalism. They emphasized that one of the ways the new evangelicalism showed itself was in the rejection of dispensational Pre-tribulation theology. “By 1954 it was evident that the [Denver Baptist Theological] Seminary had introduced a doctrine foreign to Colorado Conservative Baptists—the accepted dispensational premise was being abandoned in favor of reformation theology. In relation to this position is the theory of the post-tribulation rapture of the church. Dr. Burdick is reported to hold strongly to this ‘post-trib’ position, and President Vernon Grounds has stated, ‘As for myself, I am in a state of indecision. ... I will not say that I am a pretribulationist. ... I simply do not know, though I incline toward the ‘post’ view’” (from ‘Divided We Fall,’ page 5, compiled by Wayne Musson, Lake Crystal, Minnesota). In 1962, it was estimated by a Denver Seminary graduate that ‘half of the graduates now take the post-trib position, about 25% take the pre-trib position, and the other 25% are so confused they do not know what to believe.’”

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/role-of-pretribulation-theology.php

His candor, however, is missing from most biology textbooks, whether in high school or university. Unfortunately, the lie that evolution is established fact continues to be popularly promoted. Rare is the person who has even heard, much less who heeds at all, Pigliucci’s advice quoted above: “Be wary of oversimplified answers found in introductory biology textbooks.”

Definition and Context

Israel’s status as “chosen” refers to a unique relationship established by God. The term “chosen” appears in passages such as Deuteronomy 7:6, where Israel is described as a “people holy to the LORD.” This concept highlights a divinely appointed role for the nation in carrying forward God’s promises and purposes in history. Although the choice of Israel might seem selective, Scripture emphasizes that it stems from God’s grace and faithfulness rather than Israel’s inherent qualities or merit.

Foundations in the Abrahamic Covenant

God’s promise to Abram (later Abraham) provides the initial framework. In Genesis 12:1-2, the LORD says: “Leave your country, your kindred, and your father’s household, and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation…” This foundational call points to a covenantal relationship in which Abraham’s descendants become distinct among the nations.

Later, in Genesis 15, God confirms His covenant with Abraham, symbolically passing between the pieces of sacrificial animals (Genesis 15:9-18). By taking on the covenant with no conditions placed on Abraham in that moment, God underscores His intentions to bring these promises to fruition regardless of human failings or external obstacles.

A Nation Set Apart

In the generations after Abraham, his descendants became the twelve tribes that formed the nucleus of Israel. God reiterated His commitment, as seen with Isaac (Genesis 26:3-4) and Jacob (Genesis 28:13-14). Over time, these descendants grew into a people enslaved in Egypt, only to be delivered through God’s intervention under Moses’ leadership (Exodus 3:7-10).

Upon their deliverance, the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai further clarified their set-apart status. According to Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations…and you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” They were chosen to preserve a divine moral order and reveal the character of God’s holiness to the world.

Reasons for the Choice

Deuteronomy 7:7-8 provides a concise explanation: “The LORD did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than the other peoples…But because the LORD loved you and kept the oath He swore to your fathers.” This text underscores:

1. God’s Love and Grace. Israel’s election illustrates divine love rather than human achievement.

2. Faithfulness to Covenant. God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob necessitated that He remain faithful to bring about the blessings and salvation foreshadowed in that promise.

3. Demonstration of Holiness. By choosing an often “stiff-necked people” (Exodus 32:9) with no claim to greatness, God’s glory is displayed through their deliverance, their laws, and ultimately the Messiah.

[TBC: To see the full article from which this excerpt comes, go to: https://biblehub.com/q/why_was_israel_chosen_by_god.htm

This is all science fiction. No one has ever seen a hypercycle, progenote, etc. “How plausible is all this?” Pigluicci asks. Bravely upholding the honor of modern science as best he can, he replies, “It certainly is conceivable from the standpoint of modern biology. The problem is that each step is difficult to describe in detail from a theoretical standpoint, and so far (with the exception of the formation of organic molecules in the soup) has proven remarkably elusive from an empirical perspective. It looks like we have several clues, but the overall puzzle is proving to be one of the most difficult for scientific analysis to solve . . . the events in question are so far remote in time that there is very little we can be certain about, making any attempt at empirical investigation hopelessly vague.”

Massimo Pigliucci acknowledges, “The origin of life is one question that science will be pondering for some time to come . . . be wary of oversimplified answers found in introductory biology textbooks.”38 God is eliminated not by evidence and proof but by definition. What does that leave? Scrambling desperately to get along without a Creator, scientists offer all manner of speculation (which is all they have), as does Pigliucci himself. Consider the following (uncertainties/guesses are italicized):

“The general path leading to the organization of life seems to have been something like this: 1. Primordial soup. . . ; 2. Nucleo-proteins (similar to modern tRNAs); 3. Hypercycles [which] could have coexisted before the origin of life. . . ; 4. Cellular hypercycles . . . eventually enclosed in a primitive cell made of lipids. . . ; 5. Progenote (first self-replicating, metabolizing cell, possibly made of RNA and proteins, with DNA entering the picture later on.”

One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker:

“Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don’t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago.”

Other anticreationists such as Kenneth Miller parrot the same sort of argument (see Refuting Evolution 2, ch. 7: Bad design is evidence of leftovers from evolution?).

Dawkins was really using a theological argument rather than a scientific one. I.e. he was claiming that a designer wouldn’t design something like this, rather than scientifically demonstrating evolution.

For all the cant about creationists using theology rather than science, notice that Dawkins was really using a theological argument rather than a scientific one. I.e. he was claiming that a designer wouldn’t design something like this, rather than scientifically demonstrating evolution (cf. Rats! A toothless argument for evolution). After all, he admitted to ignorance of an evolutionary explanation.

This is not surprising—the computer simulation he touts as proof for eye evolution starts with the nerve behind the light-sensitive spot. The vertebrate eye has the nerves in front of the photoreceptors, while the evolutionary just-so story provides no transitions from behind to in front, with all the other complex coordinated changes that would have to occur as well.1

However, ophthalmologists have denounced Dawkins’ claim repeatedly. E.g. George Marshall, the Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science, stated in reply to Dawkins:

The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.—Dr George Marshall, Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science

“The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”2

Dr Marshall explains that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically-active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So, it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead.

It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins with the nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either:

The choroid in front of the retina—but the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a haemorrhage!

Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at all—but the photoreceptors would be slow to regenerate, so it would probably take months before we could drive after we were photographed with a flashbulb, as another ophthalmologist, Joseph Calkins, points out.3

Another creationist ophthalmologist, Dr Peter Gurney, in a detailed article, pointed out all the above with the RPE, but pointed out another use: extracting excess heat.4

However, in the evolutionists’ fantasy world, it is only natural to take the word of evolutionists totally lacking in ophthalmology qualifications over creationist experts in ophthalmology, when the issue is ophthalmology.

[This] shows that inverted wiring is necessary for vertebrate eyes to work—but that is the direct opposite of what evolutionists claim would be the ‘correct’ wiring. Note that the evolutionists’ claim is actually undercut by their own assessment of squid eyes, which, despite being ‘wired correctly’, don’t see as well as vertebrate eyes, according to the evolutionists themselves.5,6

Interestingly, anyone with excellent eyesight is said to have ‘eyes like a hawk’, which are ‘backwardly wired’, not ‘eyes like a squid’.

The excellent sight provided by these allegedly ‘wrongly wired’ eyes makes Dawkins’ objection absurd even on the face of it. Surely, if something works well, it is crass to whinge at alleged design faults. However, the precise reason for its excellent working was discovered only this year, as will be shown next.

Dawkins’ claim that the nerves obstruct the light has been falsified by very new research by scientists at Leipzig University. They showed that the vertebrate eye has an ingenious feature that overcomes even the slight disadvantage of nerves in front of the light receptors.7

The light is collected and funnelled through the nerve net to the receptors by the Müller cells, which act as optical fibres. Each cone cell has one Müller cell guiding the light to it, while several rods can share the same Müller cell.

The Müller cells work almost exactly like a fibre-optic plate that optical engineers can use to transmit an image with low distortion without using a lens. The cells even have the right variation in refractive index for “image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss.”

Indeed, Müller cells are even better than optical fibres because they are funnel-shaped, which collects more light for the receptors. The wide entrances to Müller cells cover the entire surface of the retina, so collect the maximum amount of light.

One of the research team, Andreas Reichenbach, commented: “Nature is so clever. This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the Müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible.”8

[TBC: For full article and footnotes, see:]

https://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument