If God created the world and everything else, who created God ?



If God created the world and everything else, who created God ?

The answer is no one! God is the ‘Uncaused Cause’ or ‘Prime Mover’. Only things that have a beginning (e.g. the Universe) require a creator. God, on the other hand has existed from all eternity. He is an infinite spirit, not restricted in any way by time or space.

Is your grandmother a fish? – Dr. Georgia Purdom

Is your grandmother a fish?


Dr. Georgia Purdom

According to a soon-to-be published book for young children, a fish and many other animals are your “grandmothers.” The subtitle for the book is “a child’s first book of Evolution.” While the author and illustrator do a good job of simplifying evolution through words and pictures and using terminology that is kid-friendly, it is exactly those points that make the book so deceptive.Starting with the Familiar

Rather than starting at the beginning of the evolutionary tree of life with a single-celled organism, the author starts with a fish likely because this would be more familiar to young children. The author chose not to use the terminology of “millions of years” but rather states “a long, long, long, long, long time ago” probably because young children don’t have a good understanding of time. In addition, the author uses the term “grandmother” to refer to each animal (i.e., grandmother fish, reptile, mammal) since children would know what a grandmother is but not an ancestor.

Confusing the Issue of Intelligent Behavior

The book compares animal behavior to human behavior for each of the animal grandmothers. This seduces children into thinking because they can do the same types of things they must be related to the animals. For example, “She [Grandmother Fish] could wiggle and swim fast. Can you wiggle?” Well, certainly children can wiggle (every parent can attest to this!), but that doesn’t Continue reading “Is your grandmother a fish? – Dr. Georgia Purdom”

‘It’s not science’ – Dr. Don Batten, Australia – Ph.D. in Plant Science



‘It’s not science’


Dr. Don Batten, Australia, Ph.D. in Plant Science

University of Sydney, Australia

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they will claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Continue reading “‘It’s not science’ – Dr. Don Batten, Australia – Ph.D. in Plant Science”

‘Flat Earth’ Theory: A Secular Myth Fabricated to Defame Christianity



‘Flat Earth’ Theory:

A Secular Myth Fabricated to Defame Christianity

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.” …

It’s taught in school textbooks, it’s a favorite citation of New Atheism, and it’s been referenced by no less than the President himself — Medieval Europe believed the Earth was Flat. And so it’s fact! – Except that they believed no such thing.

The popular view taught in schools is that scientists came along and rescued us all from the Medieval Church’s anti-scientific views that the World was Flat.

The only flaw in that story is that nobody ACTUALLY believed it was flat, and hadn’t believed it was flat in a very, very long time — as far back as Greek Antiquity. Even Pythagoras, Aristotle and Euclid called it spherical.

Textbooks from the middle ages described the world as round. So did Dante. And no less than the Catholic Church’s leading Medieval thinker, Thomas Aquinas wrote the following in his greatest work, Summa Theologica“:

“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.”

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.”

As it happens, Washington Irving wrote a fictional novel about Columbus, which was reported as history by John William Draper (History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science) and Andrew Dixon White’s similar tome. The “Conflict Thesis“ (idea of Religion and Science being incompatible) is attributed to Draper’s work.

“Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth-Myth” is the article much of my piece has been summarizing. It goes into greater depth, and gives references. I highly recommend it.

This leaves us with two closing thoughts.

(1) If the authors and “historians” who gave rise to the Flat Earth Theory have been dismissed by serious historians as propagandists of their day, which are really behaving like “Flat Earthers” … people of faith, or those who blindly parrot debunked historians? (The latter includes, ironically, Richard Dawkins.)

(2) If the so-called historian to whom the “conflict thesis” has been attributed was caught in a lie, how much weight should we put on his characterization of the tension between faith and science? Is it not possible that a public duped by an untrue Flat Earth myth might also have fallen for his Conflict Theory? Maybe instead of “taking scientists word for it” we could decide for ourselves whether the two are in conflict.




Ο Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης (+1994) και ένας Αρχιμανδρίτης που υποστήριζε και δίδασκε τη “θεωρία της εξελίξεως”



Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης

Ο Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης (+1994)

και ένας Αρχιμανδρίτης που υποστήριζε και δίδασκε

τη “θεωρία της εξελίξεως”

Ὁ Ἅγιος Παΐσιος ὁ Ἀγιορείτης (+1994) πολύ εἶχε στενοχωρηθῆ μέ κάποιον Αρχιμανδρίτη στόν κόσμο, ὁ ὁποῖος εἶτε λίγο εἶτε πολύ ὑποστήριζε τήν “θεωρία τῆς ἐξελίξεως”. Ὁ Γέροντας τοῦ ἐμήνυσε μέ κάποιον γνωστό του νά μετανοήση γι᾽ αὐτό, γιατί ἀλλιῶς θά τόν τιμωρήση ὁ Θεός. (Γιατί ἔκανε κακό καί σέ πολύ κόσμο μέ τίς ὁμιλίες του ἐπί τοῦ ἐν λόγῳ θέματος). “Πόσο μπορεῖ νἀ ξεφύγη κανείς, ἀκόμη καί ἐκλεκτός”, ἔλεγε ὁ Πατήρ, “ὅταν τά ἑρμηνεύη ὅλα μέ τό μυαλό, δίχως νά ἔχη τή Χάρι τοῦ Θεοῦ!”.




Video – Russia: When Technology glorifies God



Russia: When Technology glorifies God

Η ηλικία της Γης: Η αναξιοπιστία της Επιστήμης & η δικαίωση της Αγίας Γραφής – Ραδιοχρονολόγηση



Η ηλικία της Γης:

Η αναξιοπιστία της Επιστήμης & η δικαίωση

της Αγίας Γραφής






Οι ραδιομετρικές μέθοδοι χρονολόγησης στηρίζονται στα ραδιενεργά στοιχεία, που περιέχονται στα ευρήματα (πετρώματα, απολιθώματα). Ανάλογα με τα ραδιενεργά αυτά στοιχεία έχουμε 4 ραδιομετρικές μεθόδους. Όλες οι μέθοδοι στηρίζονται σε δεδομένα μη αποδείξιμα, που λειτουργούν ως αξιώματα των μαθηματικών. Θεωρούνται ότι έτσι είναι, επειδή διαφορετικά δεν μπορούν να προχωρήσουν αυτές οι μέθοδοι χρονολόγησης και οδηγούνται οι επιστήμονες σε αδιέξοδο. Συγκεκριμένα:

1.Επειδή ο ρυθμός διάσπασης των ραδιενεργών στοιχείων στις σύγχρονες μετρήσεις είναι σταθερός, θεωρείται ότι πάντοτε αυτός ο ρυθμός ήταν σταθερός. Διαφορετικά δεν μπορεί να γίνει χρονολόγηση.
Αυτό όμως αποδείχθηκε ότι δεν είναι σωστό. Ορισμένοι εξωτερικοί παράγοντες παρεμβαίνουν και αλλάζει ο ρυθμός διάσπασης. Η πυρηνική βιομηχανία πλέον στηρίζεται στην επιτάχυνση του ρυθμού διάσπασης με εμπλουτισμό ουρανίου. Αυτός ο εμπλουτισμός αποδείχθηκε ότι γίνεται και με φυσικό τρόπο, αλλάζοντας το φυσικό ρυθμό διάσπασης και ανατρέποντας τις χρονολογήσεις εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων χρόνων, κατεβάζοντάς τες σε μερικές χιλιάδες χρόνια.

2.Για να γίνει δυνατή η χρονολόγηση θεωρείται ότι αρχικά η συγκέντρωση των ραδιενεργών ουσιών στο εύρημα ήταν μηδενική. Αυτό όμως είναι αυθαίρετο, δεν αποδείχθηκε ποτέ και ούτε είναι δυνατό να αποδειχθεί ποτέ, όπως τονίζει ο αστρονόμος Άλλαν Γ. Σάνταζ στο βιβλίο “Επιστημονικό Έτος” του 1968. Γιατί; Γιατί κανένας αστροφυσικός δεν ήταν παρών στην δημιουργία τους. Και ο καθηγητής της Μεταλλουργίας Μέλβιν Α. Κουκ είναι κατηγορηματικός: “Ατυχώς, μόνο υποθέσεις μπορεί να κάνει κανείς για αυτές τις συγκεντρώσεις ραδιενεργών Continue reading “Η ηλικία της Γης: Η αναξιοπιστία της Επιστήμης & η δικαίωση της Αγίας Γραφής – Ραδιοχρονολόγηση”