Spike Psarris used to be an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He claims (as so many others) to have “entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian.” He currently runs the website creationastronomy.com (Phil Plait is not impressed by his work here), which is dedicated to “exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model, especially in astronomy,” a statement so detached from anything resembling understanding of what he is talking about that it counts as pretty much conclusive evidence that Psarris was never an “evolutionist” to begin with but your standard liar for Jesus. Now, Psarris is aware of this charge, and he has a response. In short, astronomers use the word “evolution” and talk about e.g. “the evolution of stars”; therefore … well, in Psarris’s mind what they are talking about has some connection to biological evolution. Psarris never explains why, but that is because Psarris does not have the faintest clue what he is talking about. He also complains that astronomy today has solved many of the problems of astronomy in the past, which apparently shows that it is a lie – as he puts it: “It’s not my fault if the evolutionists keep changing their minds about their ‘truth’.”
That’s the level at which Psarris’s pseudoscientific denialism is pitched. To see it in more detail, you can download his DVDs, in which he explains his creationist astronomy in an accessible manner. You will look in vain for actual science or research. But creationism has always been about outreach, not research.
Despite the inanity of his work, Psarris has some fans in the creationist community. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have been caught praising his work. Here is something called The 4th Day Alliance trying their hand at creation astronomy as well. It is … what it is, I suppose.
Diagnosis: Firmly located at the more helplessly moronic end of the creationist spectrum. His influence is probably limited to people who are already irrevocably reality challenged.
Evolutionary theory is moronic, and becoming more and more bankrupt as time goes on. As Spike has said in his lectures -evolutionists keep inventing ridiculous scenarios to explain their theory. For example - rogue asteroids to explain a multitude of problems that would otherwise show a much younger universe.ReplyDelete
I strongly suggest that you do not only look at creationist videos. Look at the other side. As far as I know there is one website that discusses all creationist claim with reason and science. That is:Delete
If you can find one argument that is not answered on that site than answer this post.
Another creationist who immediately starts off on a purported higher ground by belittling anyone who opposes their POV!! typical. Jesus , if he exists, is an ET..Phone home Christian soldiers!!!Delete
When l am teaching evolution to senior high school students, l never suggest that they change their faith. Instead, l explain how Darwin who was a devout Christian and who trained for the clergy, struggled to understand why the almighty would go to so much trouble to create many versions of a particular animal e.g. beetles of which there 3000 know to science. In his around the world trip on the Beagle he came across plants and animals not mentioned in the Bible, and he couldn't explain logically why. So many species of birds , so many lizards, so many plants some that flower and others that don't, so many fishes, snails, deer, snakes. But why? Why does the planet need so much species diversity. This is the conundrum that befell Darwin, and for most of his life he tried to explain why the almighty would make so many different species and for what plausible purpose. Why wasn't the whole 8,000,000 species of plants and animals on Noahs arc, or how did they fit on?Delete
That is very easy to explain; you almost answer your own question within the question itself.Delete
No Christian denies microevolution; it can be directly observed all around the world.
When the bible says that God created different forms of life according to it's "kind," Christians have the common sense enough to know that the term "species" is a modern form of classification which was only invented a few hundred years ago. If you resort to classifying different "kinds" of animals in your question using terms like "lizards" or "snails" or "deer" or "snakes" then is it not reasonable that God did so as well?
Christians do NOT believe that Noah put 2 of every "species" on the ark; they think he put 2 of every "kind" (2 canine, 2 feline, 2 bear, ect.)
It is also common sense that the animals would probably be young animals for obvious reasons (Smaller in size, able to procreate afterwards).
Different "kinds" of animals changing in many different ways (microevolution) after the flood is no problem for Christians; in fact, it makes perfect sense! The physical environment was drastically different after the flood, so its only reasonable to expect animals to adapt to new environments (Within the limits of their DNA). You might see an elephant start to look more like a wholly mammoth over the generations if a worldwide flood lowered the temperature of the earth and caused an iceage for example. Or you might see a wolf produce different breeds of dogs after several hundred years of domestication for example.
3 Questions for you now...
• Every day there are literly billions of examples of living creatures reproducing after their own kind... when have humans ever witnessed MACROevolution (A flower produce anything other than a flower; a bacteria produce anything other than bacteria; a bird produce anything other than a bird)?
• If there was NOT a world wide flood, then why are there mass graveyards of dinosaurs and other animals (The size of small states) with evidence of drowning in mud? Or traces of ocean algie in all the cride oil we find around the world? Or ancient flood stories all over the world?
• If every living thing that exists today was produced from something that was ALIVE, then why do you think that life originated from non-living materials?
But there is a huge question that no creationist who believes in microevolution seems ever willing to answer: If we have genetic adaptation of minor traits *what mechanism is it that prevents these traits from accumulating*? Once you accept microevolution, you have sort of given the game away unless you can point to, and empirically support, a mechanism that could conceivably block accumulation. Microevolution sort of entails macroevolution.Delete
As for your three questions:
1. I don't think you understand evolution. I can point you to e.g. the Lenski E.coli experiments and suchlike, but if you are asking for "a flower producing anything other than a flower", you don't understand the basics of how evolution works, and should probably not make claims about it. If you want a brief intro to the *evidence* for common descent, you could start here.
2. The "mass graveyards" of dinosaurs and other animals is a bit of an exaggeration, but would be compatible with e.g. local floods and shifts. Floods are rather common. They are also a natural source of myths, and the myths of one group of people will influence the myths of another group. There are also thousands of years separating the origins of these myths. The (conclusive) evidence *against* a global flood is too variegated to sum up here, but I've yet to see any creationist even trying to give an even remotely coherent response to, say, the fossil layer problem. (Animals scrambling to get away doesn't exactly explain how certain plants systematically occur, and massively so, in higher layers than certain animals).
3. This is not a question about evolution, but about abiogenesis. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that question. It's a question for biochemistry, and they're coming up with some interesting stuff there.
G.D., you wrote, "But there is a huge question that no creationist who believes in microevolution seems ever willing to answer: If we have genetic adaptation of minor traits *what mechanism is it that prevents these traits from accumulating*?"Delete
They don't accumulate. At best plants and organisms retain all of their inherited gene pool. Some lose variability through speciation.
G.D., you wrote, "Once you accept microevolution, you have sort of given the game away unless you can point to, and empirically support, a mechanism that could conceivably block accumulation. Microevolution sort of entails macroevolution."
There is no such thing as evolution: micro or macro. There is only adaptation, which is simply a reshuffling of the inherited gene pool, and speciation, which results in a loss of genetic variability.
G.D., you wrote, "I don't think you understand evolution. I can point you to e.g. the Lenski E.coli experiments and suchlike, but if you are asking for "a flower producing anything other than a flower", you don't understand the basics of how evolution works, and should probably not make claims about it.
All Lenski proved is, if you torture thousands of generations of bacteria, you end up with a lot of tortured bacteria.
G.D., you wrote, "If you want a brief intro to the *evidence* for common descent, you could start here [link]."
There is not a shred of evidence for common descent, G. D..
G.D., you wrote, "The "mass graveyards" of dinosaurs and other animals is a bit of an exaggeration, but would be compatible with e.g. local floods and shifts. Floods are rather common."
How would you explain the almost non-existent erosion between and within sedimentary layers, the almost non-existent bioturbation, the near absence of top soil between layers, and the presence of closed marine fossils in virtually every sediment layer, including those in the highest mountain ranges?
G.D., you wrote, "They are also a natural source of myths, and the myths of one group of people will influence the myths of another group. There are also thousands of years separating the origins of these myths. The (conclusive) evidence *against* a global flood is too variegated to sum up here, but I've yet to see any creationist even trying to give an even remotely coherent response to, say, the fossil layer problem."
There is no "fossil layer" problem, except maybe for the evolutionist. The geological strata and embedded fossil record support a global flood. They scream a global flood!
Other serious fossil-related problems for the evolutionist are the existence of disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis. You can add to that the flatness of coal seams (top and bottom,) with some coal seam benches (the sediment between coal seam layers) only a few inches thick, which virtually nullifies the so-called "swamp theory".
G.D., you wrote, "(Animals scrambling to get away doesn't exactly explain how certain plants systematically occur, and massively so, in higher layers than certain animals)."
I am not sure what that has to do with anything.
G.D., you wrote, "This is not a question about evolution, but about abiogenesis. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that question. It's a question for biochemistry, and they're coming up with some interesting stuff there."
Evolutionists attempt to separate evolution from the origin of life because there is no rational or plausible explanation for the origin. Frankly, life is impossible without supernatural intervention, and every rational evolutionist knows it. For the record, many evolutionists do consider the origin to be a part of evolutionary theory.
Awesome rebuttal, Dan!Delete
The creator and author of this site should add himself to the list of loons for attempting to shutdown the other side just because he says so.Delete
There are 2.2 billion with a captial B Christians in the world that is ver close to one third of the world population, then there are various other religions, such as Muslims, and a whole host of Oriental religions, matter of fact the atheists numbers are less than 1 million, some estimate their numbers as 200-250 million yet they want total control and to tell everyone what to believe, like they are doing in our schools.such a small segment of the world population and of course they are demanding to be able to push their views on us whether we want them or not, be glad you didnt live when the Catholic church reigned supream, your atheism would have seen you burned at the stake, thank God for the Reformation that ended their bloody rule. but you would emulate them by forcing everyone to believe like you do.
At least the Christianity I follow is by invitation only, no force, but invitation only
it really does not bode well for you, as there will come a leader who will claim to be god and show some pretty impressive displays he will demand to be worshiped those who dont will be put to death, I wonder how many atheists will refuse?
So if science hasn't yet explained a problem, the solution is the magic sky voice? That is creationism at its best guys.ReplyDelete
Well, your side cant do any better, as when you take the big bang to its furthest conclusions you end up where it is infinitely less likely you are a normal observer and infinitely more likely you are a Boltzmann brain, there is no you there is no universe, you are a naked brain that pops into the void and back out again.Delete
High Energy Physics - Theory
[Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 20 Aug 2010 (this version, v3)]
Boltzmann brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the multiverse
Andrea De Simone, Alan H. Guth, Andrei Linde, Mahdiyar Noorbala, Michael P. Salem, Alexander Vilenkin
High Energy Physics - Theory
[Submitted on 11 Oct 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Oct 2006 (this version, v2)]
A paradox in the global description of the multiverse
Raphael Bousso, Ben Freivogel
We use an argument by Page to exhibit a paradox in the global description of the multiverse: the overwhelming majority of observers arise from quantum fluctuations and not by conventional evolution.
High Energy Physics - Theory
[Submitted on 23 Feb 2015 (v1), last revised 14 Sep 2015 (this version, v2)]
Avoiding Boltzmann Brain domination in holographic dark energy models
In a spatially infinite and eternal universe approaching ultimately a de Sitter (or quasi-de Sitter) regime, structure can form by thermal fluctuations as such a space is thermal.
The models of Dark Energy invoking holographic principle fit naturally into such a category, and spontaneous formation of isolated brains in otherwise empty space seems the most perplexing, creating the paradox of Boltzmann Brains (BB).
You have to dig deep into the Atheists documents and papers to find this stuff, as it is not something they like to discuss out in the open for obvious reasons, as this is absurdity.
The Bible says the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so when you claim that there is no God, then it is no small wonder that you end up in folly.
Your big bang taken to its conclusions defeats itself, as iis hard for nature to make a whole universe and nature tends to do what is easier, so that for every normal brain there is an infinite number of Boltzmann brains.
There is no universe, just naked brains, no evolution, no billions of years nothing, notta, zip just a void where naked brains pop into and out of existence.
If you can't debate Spike's scientific assertions, then kill the messenger with ridicule and name calling. It is an old atheist trick.ReplyDelete
Assertions don't need to be addressed. They need to be supported in the FIRST place. Understand?
Oh, and I'm not an atheist.
But I'm certainly not religious and I accept facts and evidence.
You do understand that the bible IS the claim and NOT evidence for it's claims/assertions?
Well, if you did. You likely wouldn't have written what you did.
And, name calling goes both ways.
But the scientific side doesn't need to stoop that low. It has facts and evidence to support it. ;-)
Writings must be disproven by the critic and no one has done so in the history of biblical critics.Delete
"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself"
Facts & Evidence??? Still can't get past the Big Bang where nothing created everything. Who or what created the Gas?? Evolutionists need to stick to their script, otherwise their house of cards fall!Delete
Atheists (scientists) have devices to determine the age of the universe. All you have to do is disprove it. Oh yeah I forgot - "You weren't there." Checkmate!ReplyDelete
You and I believe that a Jew from Judea was crucified on a cross in Jerusalem as threat to Roman authority. Nothing unusual there. It happened a lot at the time. However we also believe he rose from a dead three days later. That's more of a rare occurrence and most people don't believe it. We do. ...but we weren't there.Delete
I am a Christian with training in Geology. I find this guy's quote mining and general scientific illiteracy just as annoying as any Atheist. There is a spectrum of views on origins within the Christian community and there always have been. For example, in the fourth century Augustine of Hippo, AKA Saint Augustine, said he thought that God created the whole world in one instant, fully formed. If he were alive now though his views would undoubtedly be different. I doubt he would have believed the world was literally created in seven days. I have never really understood why some people insist on seeing Genesis 1 as an account of the material origins of the world when even a cursory reading shows it to be a poem. Poems almost always use quite a bit of artistic license in the way they talk about whatever their subject is. Many Old Testament scholars observe that this passage focuses on God's sovereignty over every domain of creation rather than on how he made it all. It was never intended as some kind of ancient science. Electrical engineers who think they are qualified to be astrophysicists should not try to force it to become so either.ReplyDelete
Augustine also wrote that the creation was finished in 6 days, that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, that the day is 24 hours, and that the biblical narrative is accurate, including the flood:Delete
"In the creation God finished His works in six days, and rested on the seventh. The history of the world contains six periods marked by the dealings of God with men. The first period is from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the captivity in Babylon; the fifth, from the captivity to the advent of lowliness of our Lord Jesus Christ; the sixth is now in progress, and will end in the coming of the exalted Saviour to judgment." [Schaff, Philip, Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 04." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, Book XII.8, p.185]
"As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity." [Schaff, Philip, Augustine, City of God, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.12, p.233]
"It is plain that the day then was what it now is, a space of four-and-twenty hours, determined by the lapse of day and night; the month then equal to the month now, which is defined by the rise and completion of one moon; the year then equal to the year now, which is completed by twelve lunar months, with the addition of five days and a fourth to adjust it with the course of the sun. It was a year of this length which was reckoned the six hundredth of Noah's life, and in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month, the flood began,—a flood which, as is recorded, was caused by heavy rains continuing for forty days, which days had not only two hours and a little more, but four-and-twenty hours, completing a night and a day. And consequently those antediluvians lived more than 900 years, which were years as long as those which afterwards Abraham lived 175 of, and after him his son Isaac 180, and his son Jacob nearly 150, and some time after, Moses 120, and men now seventy or eighty, or not much longer, of which years it is said, 'their strength is labor and sorrow.'" [Ibid. Book XV.14, p.295]
"This Sabbath shall appear still more clearly if we count the ages as days, in accordance with the periods of time defined in Scripture, for that period will be found to be the seventh. The first age, as the first day, extends from Adam to the deluge; the second from the deluge to Abraham, equaling the first, not in length of time, but in the number of generations, there being ten in each. From Abraham to the advent of Christ there are, as the evangelist Matthew calculates, three periods, in each of which are fourteen generations, — one period from Abraham to David, a second from David to the captivity, a third from the captivity to the birth of Christ in the flesh." [Ibid. Book XXII.30, p.511]
The ideological spin you put on facts is inconsequential to the veracity of the observed fact. Mr Psarris's work is invaluable precisely not because of the ideological spin he personally favours but for the many observational facts he had collected and presented us with. They are those facts many of which on their own as single scientific observations prove the incorrectness and even falsehood of mainstream cosmological and evolutionary models.ReplyDelete
Why isn't Richard Dawkins on this list of "loons"? He promotes intelligent design?ReplyDelete
Hello! I am fan of Spike Psyrrus? I would love to know his date of birth?ReplyDelete
You people are absolutely disgusting for spreading this garbage about Spike. It takes 1 second to see that the atheist community uses the word evolution in astronomy ALL THE TIME. ARE YOU PEOPLE ON DRUGS? WAKE UP DRUGGIESReplyDelete
Spike Psarris asks really good questions and draws logical conclusions. Why attack him personally? If one has reasons to challenge the material he presents, then challenge that in a tactful way.....but why make fun of the person?ReplyDelete
Ad hominems and aspersions are all they know.Delete