While the case for Biblical geocentrism, is better than that for a Flat Earth, geocentrics tend to make some of the same mistakes that flat earthers make, the big one is assuming that the word earth always refers to the planet Earth despite the fact that God personally calls the dry land earth.

Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In recent years there have been claims that the Bible teaches a Flat Earth. There are even modern-day flat earthers who pushed this claim as support for their flat Earth of claims. You have probably heard that Columbus proved that the Earth was round and that he was opposed in his voyage but Bible-believing Christians who thought the earth was flat based on the Bible.  However, none of these claims are actually true neither does the Bible teach Flat Earth. On the contrary, you can actually use the Bible to support a spherical rotating earth.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

There is a trend these days, particularly online, to just trust the experts. The experts of course are those that hold to the politically correct views such as Big Bang to man evolution, man-caused climate change, and a lot more. Inherent in this idea is the notion of Scientific elitism.

 Scientific elitism is the notion that approved scientists are not to be questioned when they say something considered scientific. Of course, the only scientists that have this privilege of being unquestioned are those that follow the official party line and accept whatever leftist agenda exists on the topic they are talking about.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Science and scientism are radically different things despite the similarity in their names. Science is a methodology for studying the natural world and how it works. Scientism on the other hand is a philosophical and metaphysical perspective on science. There are three men ways of defining scientism.

  • It can be seen as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and methodology.
  • It sees science as the only objective way of determining truth.
  • It includes the unwarranted application of science to areas that do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.
Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the common ways that people try to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is that they tried to claim that the days of the creation week are not ordinary earth days. They will either claim that they are figurative for long periods of time or that they were actual days just extremely long ones. The reason they tried to do this is that they have been convinced that science has proven the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. They are usually totally ignorant of the fact that this date is based on an Atheistic model of the Earth’s origin that assumes the Bible is wrong. but what does the Bible really say?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Now there is no specific place where the Bible explicitly says the earth is 6000 years old. If it did it would be 6000 years plus however many years since that was written. However, the Bible does give sufficient chronological data that you can calculate back to where the creation would be. When you do this, you get a figure of around 6000 years.

One of the common ways of trying to get around this is to claim that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. However reading these verses shows no indication of such a gap.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the most common compromised positions is to claim that Noah’s Flood was just a local flood. Some try to connect it to events in the Black Sea, while others are ambiguous about it. So, what does the Bible really say about the extent of Noah’s Flood?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Contrary to what you may think Creationism is not the alternative to evolution, but rather it is the alternative to Naturalism. This confusion has often been used to argue against the scientific nature of creation science. This distinction is very important to understand the difference between scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Atheists will regularly claim today that atheism has known mythology, but when you really think about it The Big Bang to man evolutionary story is just that. It is atheistic mythology. They try to claim that it is scientific, and not atheistic. However, despite all their claims the Big Bang to man evolutionary story is inherently atheistic.

it is inherently atheistic because it leaves God out of the picture. Unlike sciences such as physics chemistry and most of biology, this line of thinking is not trying to understand how things work, but rather how they originated. There is a big difference between the two and the effect it has on conclusions on whether or not you include God. Much of this story has its origins among atheists. For example, universal common descent evolution was being talked about by atheists before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact, he got the idea by reading the works of his atheistic grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Pseudoscience is a term evolutionists like to use against creation science. It is a derogatory term frequently used against any concept that disagrees with those concepts that are widely held by institutionalized science. It is largely a way of trying to keep the designation of science within institutionalized science.

The word “pseudoscience” basically means fake science and it has two legitimate uses. The first is deliberate fraud on the part of the proponents. The second legitimate use of this term is in referring to fictional science. For example, inventing some scientifically sounding terminology in a science fiction story to make what is going on at least sound scientific.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The science denier labeled is Ad hominem (personal attack) that harkens back to Holocaust deniers, who were Nazi sympathizers that denied the reality of the Holocaust despite the overwhelming evidence. So basically, the use of the label is comparing creationists and Nazi sympathizers.

The notion behind this label is that the person using it thinks that a particular theory is an irrefutable science and that consequently, anyone who disagrees with it is simply denying it. This ignores the fact that there can be legitimate reasons for questioning even well-established scientific principles. One possibility is that the person to which they are applying the label has not had the concept presented to them properly. Another legitimate reason would be they do not trust the concept because of who is pushing the idea, climate change is a good example of this. The third legitimate reason is that they see possible flaws in the idea. Whether or not they are correct is a different matter, but you are not going to convince someone that they are mistaken about something by calling them names.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The charge of being anti-science is one of several often-used derogatory terms used by evolutionist against creationists. Now you will find some Christians for whom this charge is legitimate, but it is not a label the generally applies to creationists in fact most active creationists love science. The problem that most creationists have is the pushing of what can best be described as atheistic mythology in the guise of science.

The legitimate definition of anti-science is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. Definition commonly used by evolutionist and others is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. With mainstream science referring to institutionalized science. The differences in these two definitions are considerable. The first definition Is about rejection of the very principles of science in general such as the scientific method. The second focuses on specific theoretical concepts being pushed by institutionalized science. In other words, the first one, which is a legitimate use of the term, is a rejection of science in principle. While the second is used against those who disagree with specific claims made under science. There is a huge difference in the meanings of these definitions. By the way in the second definition, I will give you one guess who gets decide whether or not a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, there are creationists that declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist need to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, then they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer review journals of institutionalized science.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

How good science is at studying the past is a central point to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when interpreting evidence.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Science is at the heart of the question of origins and the age of the earth. Evolutionists like to claim that science shows the universe evolved from a super dense super-hot state in what is commonly called the Big Bang, and that the Earth collapsed from a cloud of dust and gas about 4.5 billion years ago. They also claim that life formed naturally from lifeless chemicals and then evolved into all the living things we see today including man. They further deny any legitimacy of creation science. However, discussing origins or any other topic scientifically requires knowing what science is.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Naturally, the word evolutionists used to word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive