I convinced Grok the biblical flood really happened
A conversation with Grok about geology and fossils, which comes from a video by Calvin Smith of Answers in Genesis. (more…)
Share this:
I convinced Grok that God is real
A conversation with Grok about evolution and the origin of life, which comes from a video by Calvin Smith of Answers in Genesis.
Share this:
Questions and answers about creation – 2025
The Bible gives a selective history of the earth from its creation to its re-creation. Many question this. Did you know that there are answers to your questions? Here’s the answers to some questions that were asked recently. (more…)
Share this:
Genesis: the real history of the universe
Today we hear a very different history of the universe to what the Bible teaches. This is called cosmic evolution – everything made itself. There was nothing and it exploded and here we all are! But it had no cause – God didn’t do it. It just happened. They believe in magic rather than miracles. Christians believe in miracles, but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist because they believe in magic, not miracles. Miracles require a miracle worker, and they have no miracle worker. So, they have nothing becoming everything with no cause whatsoever! Has anybody seen nothing do anything? Nothing does nothing! But this is what they have to believe if they don’t want to believe in God. Atheism is rife in Australia. And the basis of it is the idea of biological evolution. Richard Dawkins said that evolution enabled him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So evolution is the creation myth of the atheist. (more…)
Share this:
The benefits of carbon dioxide and fossil fuels
Many people are ignorant of the benefits of carbon dioxide and fossil fuels.
Two physicists have issued a technical paper showing that physics demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gases cannot cause dangerous warming, extreme weather or any harm. In particular:
– More carbon dioxide will create more food, and
– Driving greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and eliminating fossil fuels will be disastrous for people worldwide. (more…)
Share this:
Professor escaped censorship
Climate change is tricky. There’s a disconnect between what the science says and the narrative in the mainstream media. One professor found that the only way to be able to discuss this topic freely was to leave academia. (more…)
Share this:
The theological motivation of science
This post comes from Dr Jay Wilde.
The German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg (December 5, 1901 – February 1, 1976), was a pioneer of quantum physics. He developed his own formulation of quantum mechanics, for which he won the 1932 Nobel Prize in physics. He later developed his famous Uncertainty Principle, which continues to guide physicists in their understanding of the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. (more…)
Share this:
Climate: the movie
Do you know why climate change is mentioned so much today, even though none of us can detect it in our lifetime? (more…)
Share this:
Science and Christianity
This blogpost comes from Dr Roy Spencer
a former NASA scientist.
Why is it that a bible-believing scientists’ views on science are automatically discounted by some people?
Hypocrisy
First, the hypocrisy. When warmist scientists like Sir John Houghton use the Bible to support action to fight global warming (for example, his book Global Warming: The Complete Briefing) that was OK with everyone. Same with Katherine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman.
So, I guess it depends upon whether the bible-believer agrees with them before the warmists decide to trash Bible-believing ways. (more…)
Share this:
Testing climate science
Many actions proposed to address climate change threaten our way of life. But some of the “facts” used to justify these actions are misleading.
This post comes from interviews with Dr Steven Koonin (Appendix A) over the six past months. It addresses claims that there is a climate emergency or climate crisis because of dangerous climate change caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels. (more…)
Share this:
Two scientists who left atheism for Christianity
This post is based on two articles by Dr Jay Wile.
Professor Rosalind Picard
Rosalind Picard (1962 – ) is a Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who invented a new branch of computer science called affective computing. Picard was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult. When she was a school student she believed that smart children didn’t need religion. So she promoted atheism and dismissed people who believed in God as uneducated. (more…)
Share this:
Christians discovered and invented science
A common view is that there is a perceived conflict between Christianity and science. But this is erroneous because Christians discovered and invented science.
This post is based on a book by Dominic Statham.
Science
Scientists seek to gain knowledge of the laws which govern how the natural world works. They describe these laws rather than explain them. For example, we don’t know what gravity is or why there is attraction between positively and negatively charged particles although we can describe these behaviors. And science can’t tell us where these laws come from. (more…)
Share this:
Biblical geology
This post comes from a book by Oard and Carter (2021).
Biblical geology is much more sophisticated than skeptics both inside and outside of Christianity assert. Over 60 years of research, often published in technical journals as well as popular books and magazines, have produced an impressive body of evidence. Sloppy examination of creation science, and their biases, often cause secular scientists, old-earth creationists, and theistic evolutionists to grossly misrepresent the nature of the debate and the quality of evidence supporting the historic Christian view. (more…)
Share this:
Limitations of atheistic creation stories
Approximately 15 million Indians have been made redundant in the economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic. The majority of these are women who were doing low-skilled work. In a similar way, is God unnecessary because science can now explain all we need to know about the universe?
The big-bang model and the theory of biological evolution are atheistic creation stories. They assume there is no divine influence by ruling out the supernatural. So it is often assumed that they do away with the need for a God. But we will see that these theories explain less than what most people think. They have not made God redundant.
The big bang model of the universe
According to the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!” (see Appendix A). They also say, “It’s a theory of the origin and evolution of the universe”. (more…)
Share this:
John Lennox against the tide
Salmon swim upstream to mate and lay their eggs in small rivers and shallow waters that protect them from predators and strong currents. In this post we look at someone swimming upstream against the tides of atheism.
This post is based on the documentary movie “Against the tide” by Pensmore Films, in which the actor Kevin Sorbo interviews Professor John Lennox to test belief in God. It looks at the existence of God in the age of science. Does the Christian faith stand up in our age of science and reason? In the movie John Lennox defends Christianity against the tide of atheism in academia. His statements are in italics. (more…)
Share this:
John Lennox against the tide in science
It has been said that our culture no longer has a use for God. Professor Stephen Hawking, University of Cambridge, claimed that the universe invented itself without a creator: “The universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God”. But Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, disagrees: “The universe is best explained by the existence of a purposeful creator. All competing claims lack explanatory power.” But does the Christian faith stand up in our age of science and reason?
This post is based on the documentary movie “Against the tide” by Pensmore Films, in which the actor Kevin Sorbo interviews Professor John Lennox to test belief in God. It looks at the existence of God in the age of science. In the movie the tide of atheism in academia is represented by statements by Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Laurence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Peter Singer and Stephen Weinberg. (more…)
Share this:
When science caught up with the Bible
The universe had a beginning
The pagan Greek philosophers thought the physical universe had no beginning. To Plato (428-348 BC), the universe was perfect and unchanging. And Aristotle (384–322 BC) argued that the world (matter) must have existed from eternity. If the universe could never have gone from nothingness to somethingness, it must always have existed. For this and other reasons, time must stretch eternally into the past and future. Aristotle taught that the world was eternal.
Medieval philosophers also wondered whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. And medieval authors debated that point in light of the Christian creation story. (more…)
Share this:
Is the theory of biological evolution science or history?
Here is a conversation I had with Dr Jay Wile on whether “historical science” (like the theory of biological evolution) is science or history. Is it scientific or is it an historical narrative (a story written by scientists based on what they believed happened in the unverifiable past)?
Other conversations on this topic are given in Appendix A.
Dr Wile’s comment
With regard the documentary movie “Dismantled” by Back2Genesis:
… I do want to point out that I strongly disagree with the first part of the documentary, which tries to claim that evolution isn’t really science; it’s history. As such, it’s not the same as the science that cures disease and makes Mars rovers, because it studies something that is not repeatable: the past. This is a very common assertion among creationists, but it is utterly false.
In fact, epidemiology has cured disease by studying the past. More importantly, the study of the past is definitely repeatable. We cannot repeat the past itself, but we can study the evidence related to the past, develop a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis with more observations of the evidence related to the past. We can repeat such observations in different parts of the world, and if the hypothesis is repeatedly verified, it is just as scientific as a hypothesis about a medical procedure. A theory is scientific if it makes predictions that can be observationally verified. This is true whether the theory is about the past, present, or future. (more…)
Share this:
God and science
Is God obsolete? Has God been replaced by science?
Nobel Prize winners
John Lennox noted that if science and God do not mix, there would be no Christian Nobel Prize winners. In fact, between 1900 and 2000 over 65% of Nobel Laureates were self-confessed believers in God.
The statistics were taken from Shalev (2005) and the number of theists may even have been higher still, as he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian, whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim. Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics). (more…)
Share this:
Atheism and science
The views of two scientists
Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. That’s the view of Marcelo Gleiser, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College.
He says that atheism is a statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe”. Or “I deny something I have no evidence against”. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. (more…)
Share this:
What is historical science?
In May 2019 I visited Uluru and Kata Tjuta in Central Australia. The explanations of these rock formations say that these sands and gravels were deposited about 500 million years ago. But where does this date come from? After all, it’s not written anywhere on these sedimentary rocks!
This post is based on a children’s book by Hughes and Cosner (2018).
Claims about the past?
If the Bible says that the earth is only thousands of years old, how do scientists know that fossils and rocks can be millions of years old? Fossils and rocks don’t have dates written on them like some historical events. This is explained by the fact that there are two stories about the past which are used to explain the facts we see today in different ways. One assumes the historical record in the Bible and the other a historical record constructed by those who disregard the Bible. Both of these stories are based on historical science. (more…)
Share this:
Are miracles scientific?
Can the Bible’s miracles be explained away by science? Many people who refuse to believe in God think they can explain away His existence and miracles using scientific explanations.
This post comes from a children’s book by Hughes and Cosner (2018).
What is a miracle?
A miracle is an unusual event from God that He uses to tell us about Himself. Examples from the Bible include healings, raising from the dead, and displays of power over nature. This is different from God’s providential care over creation, which can be described scientifically (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:3). For instance, the laws of physics partially describe how God is upholding creation in an orderly way (1 Cor. 14:33). (more…)
Share this:
Where were you?
If you had the opportunity, what question would you ask God? After tragedy in his life, Job had many questions for God. But when they finally met the tables were turned and God asked Job “Where were you when I created the world”? Job was silenced because the answer was “Nowhere”.
Question and answer
The context is that God says that Job needs to be educated on mysteries that surpass his understanding (38:2). He should have realized that many things known to God are hidden from humanity.
The first question that God asked was:
4“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7NIV) (more…)
Share this:
Two Big-bang miracles
The big-bang model is the current scientific explanation of the universe (Appendix A). Did you know that this mathematical theory includes two miracles that can’t be explained by modern science? According to the Macquarie dictionary, a miracle is “an effect in the physical world which surpasses all known human or natural powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agency”.
A model is a mathematical explanation of something. Models that describe a current process can be tested experimentally against the real thing. Their predictions can be compared with observations. This is operational science which is reliable. But models about the distant past can’t be tested in that way because we can’t directly observe the past (and human records are fragmentary). This is historical (or forensic) science which is more speculative and unreliable than operational science. It involves the construction of tentative historical narratives to explain past events. And models about the distant future can’t be tested in that way because the future hasn’t occurred yet. This is futuristic science which is also more speculative and unreliable. Historical and futuristic science often rely on unreliable assumptions and extrapolations. But just because operational science is reliable, doesn’t mean that the others are also reliable. In fact, because they can’t be tested by experimentation, historical and futuristic science will always be less accurate than operational science. So operational science is more robust than historical and futuristic science. (more…)
George's Journal 
RECENT COMMENTS