It amazes me that some that say they believe in an all-powerful, all-wise God somehow do NOT believe that that means that there is nothing impossible for Him, including creating a Universe in which everything was already fully functioning as it should at the moment He spoke it all into being -- and that includes the sun and all the other stars already shining their light onto and warming the earth, and the moon and the planets already reflecting the sun, et al. The same faith in the Word of God that informs and convinces me that Creation happened exactly as God told us also informs and convinces me that He is the Lord of physics, of light, of energy, of time and space and all the rest of His amazing Creation. He does not live under His rules. He created those rules for us, for our good and for the good of His Creation, while He rules over, maintains them, and uses them as He pleases.
It's pretty simple. God created it all, including every photon in it's place as if they had been travelling for as many years as you want. Then he let it go on it's own. Any Christian who denies YE 6-day creation has many problems since everything else is based on that. Death before the fall would have existed in a OE universe and it's clear that death entered the world only when sin entered.
1.The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires inexorable deterioration of anything complex over "billions of years." In other words, it requires deterioration from man to molecules, not vice versa ("evolution" from molecules to man).
2. DNA is by far the most complex molecule in the universe, and each new scientific discovery only adds to the complexity. It can be read forward, backward, with skips along one chromosome and with skips to entirely different chromosomes. And don't get me started on epigenetics. And the recent discovery of Dark Protein. Things this mind-bogglingly complex do not self-create. They were created by an Intelligence way beyond our comprehension.
"it has fewer scientific and mathematical holes than the Big Bang Theory itself."
Um, just about every origin theory has less holes than big bang which we know contradicts the most basic laws of science. The rest of this gibberish rests on the premises that secular theories designed to explain away the need for a Creator are true, correct, and "unbiased science."
This was an interesting follow up to the physics arguments regarding creation theories. Thanks.
It's not that often we can run across other people interested in these sorts of theoretical sciences. I'm sure you'll find this below theory as interesting as I did. The electric universe theory. I've not spent much time on this over the past few decades as life happened and physics is no longer something I have much time for. These guys certainly keep building upon the work though.
They had me at the mars video. What a fascinating theory. The electric universe theory has the potential to fill all the gaps. We are electric. God is electric. His creations are electric. Electricity is what drives the universe, not gravity. Gravity is a consequence of electricity. Mass is a by product of electrical cohesion. There is no empty space, only weak fields. Superstring theory is the nature of ionic and photonic activity. That's one theory at least. Hopefully I have the right video here, think I do. Describes a massive electrical storm which is what reshaped the surface of mars. One can get a basic understanding of theory just by surfing this channels video titles down the line. They've really been breaking this down more as time goes by.
Symbols of an Alien Sky, Episode 2: The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars
We'll probably never know. Are we even intended to know? How would these theories fit alongside the notion that man's true purpose is to stop entropy, bringing love and harmony to the creation, should we actually live within the hologram? Can it all be true at once? Through my life at least, understanding complex physics and philosophies, for what I was able without formal education, really boiled down to simple concepts; Live. Love. Be happy. Simple things are good things. Support each other. Do not be greedy. We are never alone, yet will always deal with the hubris of others. Every single action we perform, every thought, ripples through time and space, causing effects elsewhere. (because; electricity!, aka the golden thread or karmic wheel in other cultures)
The pace of invention and discovery is quickening and humans now risk everything in their failure to slow everything down and be more patient, to place being human and each others well being first. Yet faith persists. The will of god unbreakable. We are living in his world, he created for us, time carries everyone forward at once. We exist in the theater over and over again, our energy never dissipates. The soul, an energetic bond bestowed by the creator which has the ability to transcend time and space. That's my take anyways. Make of it what you will. All quite fascinating to think about. The bending time curve of relative matter expansion, giving light the time it needed, really sparks the imagination. Now fit that in with electrical theory! Ha! The adventure never ends. Awesome, thanks.
"Light created in transit solves the travel time by putting finished photons in the beam already aimed at Earth. It also puts finished supernovae, finished galaxy collisions, and finished histories into the sky that never happened. That is not mature creation. That is a painted backdrop. God does not need to fake a war in heaven so Adam can enjoy the view."
This statement makes the same error skeptics make when they read Scripture and interpret God's actions as other than what they are. It is, at best, an interpretation. You wouldn't condemn an author for creating backstory that did not exist prior to page 1.
Adam was both 0 days old and ~18–33 years old at the moment of his creation. The trees were already bearing fruit. You accept that as mature creation, then call the same thing in the sky a painted backdrop. That's treating Creation like a buffet, picking which parts God was allowed to finish. Was a mature Earth also a painted backdrop? Anything less, a raw world Adam couldn't survive on, would have amounted to child abuse.
Nor are supernovae there so Adam can enjoy the view. A sky of stars with no evidence of stars dying would be like a painter putting a sunset in his painting with no sun. The seams would compel a conclusion. God fashioned a fully filled sandbox where belief is not compelled but remains a choice. He is interested in those who take Him at His word rather than bowing to the physical things He rendered. That was the mistake in the garden, and it is the skeptic's mistake when he looks at the physical world and says, "Aha! This is all there is!"
Humans build games like No Man's Sky, generating whole universes full of ancient ruins that never happened. Why turn to the Creator and tell Him He has to do it the long way?
Unfortunately, using this logic there would be no reason to believe that yesterday or any time before the present ever existed. Because all of that might be constructed by God as well. Either we believe in history and that natural order exists and has existed for possibly billions of years, or we don't. Either we accept that the speed of light works the way it does - it takes a billion years for light to travel a billion light years - or we don't. And if we accept that, then we need to at least try to understand HOW we got to where we are. I believe the scriptures are true, but we need to look at ALL of them not just those parts that we want to use to make up a story about Genesis being the beginning of all time. Because Genesis 1:2 tells us that energy existed (the oceans were liquid, not solid), time and distance existed (the Spirit moved = space and time), and matter existed (the surging oceans). The "dry lands" (Aretz) may not have existed because they were not dry, nor were the skies (the Heavens) functioning properly (darkness), but the Planet Earth was already there (the Spirit was moving ABOVE the waters (there was a direction UP and therefore a direction DOWN due to gravity). The planet was already there.
Once you understand the flexibility of an ancient Hebrew, you don't need fake & gay junk science to see that there's no clash between Genesis and 14 billion years:
This author writes well but in reality is a vicious Jew-hater who loves violence porn and four-letter filth, who makes up a sickening name for all those with whom he disagrees, and thinks fast cars and video games are serious subjects for readers at The Liberty Daily, a once-respectable site that the man is doing his level best to destroy. He is nothing RESEMBLING a conservative, and I would bet my mortgage the sicko is not even a Christian. He just plays one on the internet. Had this fine essay been written by anyone else on earth but J.D. Rucker, I could have actually taken it seriously. Now, excuse me while I go lose my lunch.
Oscar, that's very strange. I generally don't read comments but I'm glad I read on this particular story.
I think you're confusing me with other editors or the owner at The Liberty Daily because I have never been a "vicious Jew-hater" nor have I ever posted "violence porn". I am ONE of the editors at TLD who accounts for about 25% of the content posted there.
I do not own the site. I oppose a ton of the content that they started posting the last couple of years but I can only take responsibility for MY content there. I used to post nearly 90% of the content way back when but now I am just one of the posters.
I do not like fast cars. I do not play video games. I do not post content about either.
I am the ONLY feast-keeping, pro-Jewish voice on the staff, so your accusations being directed at me are very strange. It would be like attacking Scott Jennings as a radical leftist journalist because he's on CNN so he MUST hate President Trump. I think your anger is misdirected and you're definitely bearing false witness against me.
I will accept every single denial you posted in your reply as the Gospel truth and readily apologize for the confusion. HOWEVER, SOME ONE IS DOING THAT THERE. And even given that what you just wrote is 100% accurate, you still admit to being part of a site that does exactly what I thought YOU are doing. So why on earth would you post at a site where even HALF of what I reported is the case? Why in the world would you continue being part of a site that IS filled with filthy language, where there IS vicious and demonic Jew-hate, where there IS violence porn, where there IS trivial nonsense about cars and sports and video games, instead of serious news articles that could help patriots save the country from people who think like the other editors and the owners do? Since you used an analogy to dismantle my argument, let me close with one of my own. You sound like a man who admits he is a card-carrying member of a group of cannibals who meet once a week for a delicious feast, but insists he does not eat human flesh and has no idea why any person would confuse him with those who do. Given that you DO work at TLD, and since you deny every single thing I thought was the case about you, my question is: WHY would you stay on there?
We don't just do battle in our own convenient bubble. Articles (such as this one) would no longer appear to the millions of monthly visitors at TLD if I leave.
Having some control over some of the content is better than leaving in "protest" and leaving its wide audience to only get the woke right side of the story.
I apply free speech on a personal level to everything I do. That's not a 1st Amendment thing; I'm not talking about government censorship. On my site, jdrucker.com, I post what I want seen. On TLD, I also post what I want people to see while others post what they want people to see.
Unfortunately, jdrucker.com gets about 1/300th the monthly visits of TLD. So if I want to reach people with good content, it must intermingle with content that I don't agree with.
I could avoid dining with cannibals and leave everyone there to only get one side of the story while no longer exposing good content to the masses. That would certainly make my life easier and exponentially less stressful. But I choose to fight the good fight even if it means doing so in unfriendly venues, and even if it means I get daily emails from people who think I'm the one guy posting 200 stories per day on TLD.
I've learned to accept attacks from people who, for some reason, think that I own TLD. Lord willing someday people will go to my site with my name on it that I actually own.
But there's something else to consider. Working at TLD has been a true blessing. As you noted, it wasn't always like this. I've met more people and expanded my reach to a greater audience as a result. Just because I don't agree with others that work there doesn't mean I should leave. I appreciate what TLD has allowed me and I pray that someday I can bring some or all of them to the truth.
Thank you for the respectful and informative reply. Though I don't agree with every position and view you've taken, at least I do, finally, understand that TLD is not your site, and repeat my apology. It is a tremendous relief to know that you are not the one gleefully calling Netanyahu "Satan", eagerly using the word "fuck" in titles, and passionately posting disturbing violence porn at every chance. I still cannot understand why you would stay there; your defense, in my view, doesn't come close to explaining a Christian's decision to remain at a site that has devolved to what TLD has sickeningly become. I was one of that site's first faithful readers, having believed what the founders promised (about it being a conservative alternative to TDR) and now see it as nothing less than a mockery of that claim. As a mere shell of what it was and what it could & should still be. I have spent literally TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS patronizing the companies that appear at TLD, and now feel as if I was a fool to believe in them and to invest in them. Maybe that is why (though it is comforting to know YOU are not the one driving it into the ground) it is so frustrating to see what it has become - a site that is no longer conservative, no longer Christian, and a place that horrifically misuses the sacred right to a free press. You might be better off with the honest cannibals or the folks at CNN - at least they don't pretend to be something other than what they are! But the best to you at what, and where, you believe God has called you to. Keep up the good work, faithful servant.
JDR should probably chuckle a bit. Engage in nerd-speak and one should expect it in response. Too many of the concepts in the article and some comments are that to me, which indeed may be my failing.
As mentioned or suggested by others in comment herein when we talk of laws of the universe and the God who made them the universal truth for us is that the mind of the lawgiver is unknowable at our pathetic abilities to understand. Our rigid rules for such things are not "law" but rather that we have an operating theory that we can use to predict things in our very limited way as far as our perception allows. We are but children with a set of shapes that our curiosity tries to fit together initially to make things but later in a lack of humility extending from original sin, we pretend to have the power to fully understand perhaps with an (delusional) eye to be as powerful as God.
Hubris takes over. We pretend to fully know what comprises those blocks we are playing with and we too often try to force fit them. Both folly. And darned if we do not find our presumptions, our awarding of the term "law" are not only incomplete but may be something beyond our wildest imagination and capacity to understand. Physical "laws" it seems still reduce to manmade concepts and superficial logic. God is not so limited. What man calls a physical law is but a trite understanding. In the pursuit some discover humility, others just another reason for the research grant grift.
What we call laws may only be the most superficial of understandings. The only real law is God and what He imparts physically we can only sort of feel our way around. And maybe "time" is one with God (how is that for some metaphysics). The moral law has intricacies and having discernment about that is more about what the Law Giver has tasked us to do for his purposes. Thinking we can fully fathom the rest is often a joke maybe by a spirit that wants to divert us.
JDR's attempt to reconcile what people think they know with what the Bible says is fine maybe instructive to some but never lose sight that we are blind except to what God gives us to see.
Great article but a simpler explanation is provided in Scripture itself in the numerous descriptions of God stretching space. Job 9:8; Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1 all present the heavens as something God stretches, spreads, or spans—often with a participle, as present work rather than a finished past act. Genesis 1’s raqia is an expanse. Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1 add that the heavens wear out and will be changed.
That language matches the physics of this article without a new constant. Genesis 1 describes an act of extreme energy density. In general relativity, clocks run slow where density is high. As space expands and density falls, the dilation eases. A few thousand years of proper time on a forming Earth can therefore sit beside vast cosmic process farther out, while the speed of light remains unchanged and no finished history need be painted into the beam. Today the timelines run together, which is why ordinary relativistic corrections suffice.
Stretching supports expansion; it does not by itself prove a young Earth. That still rests on Exodus 20:11 and the genealogies. The smoothness of the cosmic microwave background also remains a difficulty for a strongly geocentric well. A global initial-state dilation, followed by the stretching Scripture already names, is the cleaner reading.
The heavens declare His glory. They also declare that He stretched them. That is the simpler account.
Scripture does not place the earth at the bottom of a unique gravitational well. It places the earth under a heaven God stretched as a whole.
Isaiah 40:22 says He sits upon the circle of the earth and stretches the heavens as a curtain and a tent. The earth is inhabited space beneath that expanse, not the center of a special well whose depth would mark the sky. Job 26:7 says He hangs the earth upon nothing and stretches the north over emptiness. That is the opposite of an earth-centered density peak. Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, and 45:12 treat the stretching of the heavens and the founding of the earth as companion acts of the same Creator, not as a privileged clock at one location.
The opening of Genesis is likewise global. “Let there be light” and the forming of the raqia are spoken over the whole creation. The text never says time ran slowly only where Adam would stand. Psalm 19 says the heavens declare God’s glory through all the earth and that their line has gone out through all the world. A microwave sky that is nearly the same in every direction fits that kind of proclamation better than a map whose hot and cold spots betray a well with earth at the bottom.
The participle verses matter here. God stretches the heavens. The action belongs to the heavens as such. As density falls with that stretch, dilation falls everywhere the stretch reaches. Earth clocks need no separate catch-up device and no unique well. Exodus 20:11 still fixes the earthly week. It does not require earth to occupy a special potential that would wrinkle the leftover light.
So the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background is not a refutation of Genesis. It is a difficulty only for the extra assumption that earth sat in a deep, local well. Scripture never makes that assumption. It describes a spoken beginning of extreme density and a heaven God stretched. That is a global initial state, then expansion. Relativity can be asked what clocks do in that regime. It should not be asked to defend a geocentric well the text does not teach.
Well written, as always, JD. I think! I only understood MAYBE 50% of what you've said here, so i doubly thank our Creator for giving us the Genesis Scriptures. It tells me God is all knowing, and all powerful, and the source of perfect love, and of all that is good. That's Him showing, yet again, extreme kindness to the likes of me and others who might have skipped too many science classes. But don't get me wrong... i do enjoy the science as far as i can understand it, and I've always enjoyed what and how you write, including this.
But for me, once I've crossed into the land of advanced (?) physics, i fall back on that old bumper sticker of faith: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" 😁
It amazes me that some that say they believe in an all-powerful, all-wise God somehow do NOT believe that that means that there is nothing impossible for Him, including creating a Universe in which everything was already fully functioning as it should at the moment He spoke it all into being -- and that includes the sun and all the other stars already shining their light onto and warming the earth, and the moon and the planets already reflecting the sun, et al. The same faith in the Word of God that informs and convinces me that Creation happened exactly as God told us also informs and convinces me that He is the Lord of physics, of light, of energy, of time and space and all the rest of His amazing Creation. He does not live under His rules. He created those rules for us, for our good and for the good of His Creation, while He rules over, maintains them, and uses them as He pleases.
Well said. The Lord God said ‘let there be light’ and from there to now we have light. The Word of God is literal.
It's pretty simple. God created it all, including every photon in it's place as if they had been travelling for as many years as you want. Then he let it go on it's own. Any Christian who denies YE 6-day creation has many problems since everything else is based on that. Death before the fall would have existed in a OE universe and it's clear that death entered the world only when sin entered.
Awesome, thanks so much! I'm a YEC because:
1.The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires inexorable deterioration of anything complex over "billions of years." In other words, it requires deterioration from man to molecules, not vice versa ("evolution" from molecules to man).
2. DNA is by far the most complex molecule in the universe, and each new scientific discovery only adds to the complexity. It can be read forward, backward, with skips along one chromosome and with skips to entirely different chromosomes. And don't get me started on epigenetics. And the recent discovery of Dark Protein. Things this mind-bogglingly complex do not self-create. They were created by an Intelligence way beyond our comprehension.
"it has fewer scientific and mathematical holes than the Big Bang Theory itself."
Um, just about every origin theory has less holes than big bang which we know contradicts the most basic laws of science. The rest of this gibberish rests on the premises that secular theories designed to explain away the need for a Creator are true, correct, and "unbiased science."
This was an interesting follow up to the physics arguments regarding creation theories. Thanks.
It's not that often we can run across other people interested in these sorts of theoretical sciences. I'm sure you'll find this below theory as interesting as I did. The electric universe theory. I've not spent much time on this over the past few decades as life happened and physics is no longer something I have much time for. These guys certainly keep building upon the work though.
They had me at the mars video. What a fascinating theory. The electric universe theory has the potential to fill all the gaps. We are electric. God is electric. His creations are electric. Electricity is what drives the universe, not gravity. Gravity is a consequence of electricity. Mass is a by product of electrical cohesion. There is no empty space, only weak fields. Superstring theory is the nature of ionic and photonic activity. That's one theory at least. Hopefully I have the right video here, think I do. Describes a massive electrical storm which is what reshaped the surface of mars. One can get a basic understanding of theory just by surfing this channels video titles down the line. They've really been breaking this down more as time goes by.
Symbols of an Alien Sky, Episode 2: The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y
I bought the electric sun T shirt so long ago. Still have it in the closet. What a fascinating theory.
https://www.stickmanonstone.com/shop/p/electricsunshirtm
We'll probably never know. Are we even intended to know? How would these theories fit alongside the notion that man's true purpose is to stop entropy, bringing love and harmony to the creation, should we actually live within the hologram? Can it all be true at once? Through my life at least, understanding complex physics and philosophies, for what I was able without formal education, really boiled down to simple concepts; Live. Love. Be happy. Simple things are good things. Support each other. Do not be greedy. We are never alone, yet will always deal with the hubris of others. Every single action we perform, every thought, ripples through time and space, causing effects elsewhere. (because; electricity!, aka the golden thread or karmic wheel in other cultures)
The pace of invention and discovery is quickening and humans now risk everything in their failure to slow everything down and be more patient, to place being human and each others well being first. Yet faith persists. The will of god unbreakable. We are living in his world, he created for us, time carries everyone forward at once. We exist in the theater over and over again, our energy never dissipates. The soul, an energetic bond bestowed by the creator which has the ability to transcend time and space. That's my take anyways. Make of it what you will. All quite fascinating to think about. The bending time curve of relative matter expansion, giving light the time it needed, really sparks the imagination. Now fit that in with electrical theory! Ha! The adventure never ends. Awesome, thanks.
Have a good one. Thanks again, great read.
"Light created in transit solves the travel time by putting finished photons in the beam already aimed at Earth. It also puts finished supernovae, finished galaxy collisions, and finished histories into the sky that never happened. That is not mature creation. That is a painted backdrop. God does not need to fake a war in heaven so Adam can enjoy the view."
This statement makes the same error skeptics make when they read Scripture and interpret God's actions as other than what they are. It is, at best, an interpretation. You wouldn't condemn an author for creating backstory that did not exist prior to page 1.
Adam was both 0 days old and ~18–33 years old at the moment of his creation. The trees were already bearing fruit. You accept that as mature creation, then call the same thing in the sky a painted backdrop. That's treating Creation like a buffet, picking which parts God was allowed to finish. Was a mature Earth also a painted backdrop? Anything less, a raw world Adam couldn't survive on, would have amounted to child abuse.
Nor are supernovae there so Adam can enjoy the view. A sky of stars with no evidence of stars dying would be like a painter putting a sunset in his painting with no sun. The seams would compel a conclusion. God fashioned a fully filled sandbox where belief is not compelled but remains a choice. He is interested in those who take Him at His word rather than bowing to the physical things He rendered. That was the mistake in the garden, and it is the skeptic's mistake when he looks at the physical world and says, "Aha! This is all there is!"
Humans build games like No Man's Sky, generating whole universes full of ancient ruins that never happened. Why turn to the Creator and tell Him He has to do it the long way?
Unfortunately, using this logic there would be no reason to believe that yesterday or any time before the present ever existed. Because all of that might be constructed by God as well. Either we believe in history and that natural order exists and has existed for possibly billions of years, or we don't. Either we accept that the speed of light works the way it does - it takes a billion years for light to travel a billion light years - or we don't. And if we accept that, then we need to at least try to understand HOW we got to where we are. I believe the scriptures are true, but we need to look at ALL of them not just those parts that we want to use to make up a story about Genesis being the beginning of all time. Because Genesis 1:2 tells us that energy existed (the oceans were liquid, not solid), time and distance existed (the Spirit moved = space and time), and matter existed (the surging oceans). The "dry lands" (Aretz) may not have existed because they were not dry, nor were the skies (the Heavens) functioning properly (darkness), but the Planet Earth was already there (the Spirit was moving ABOVE the waters (there was a direction UP and therefore a direction DOWN due to gravity). The planet was already there.
Once you understand the flexibility of an ancient Hebrew, you don't need fake & gay junk science to see that there's no clash between Genesis and 14 billion years:
https://reasons.org/christianity/bible/word-studies-in-genesis-one
This author writes well but in reality is a vicious Jew-hater who loves violence porn and four-letter filth, who makes up a sickening name for all those with whom he disagrees, and thinks fast cars and video games are serious subjects for readers at The Liberty Daily, a once-respectable site that the man is doing his level best to destroy. He is nothing RESEMBLING a conservative, and I would bet my mortgage the sicko is not even a Christian. He just plays one on the internet. Had this fine essay been written by anyone else on earth but J.D. Rucker, I could have actually taken it seriously. Now, excuse me while I go lose my lunch.
Oscar, that's very strange. I generally don't read comments but I'm glad I read on this particular story.
I think you're confusing me with other editors or the owner at The Liberty Daily because I have never been a "vicious Jew-hater" nor have I ever posted "violence porn". I am ONE of the editors at TLD who accounts for about 25% of the content posted there.
I do not own the site. I oppose a ton of the content that they started posting the last couple of years but I can only take responsibility for MY content there. I used to post nearly 90% of the content way back when but now I am just one of the posters.
I do not like fast cars. I do not play video games. I do not post content about either.
I am the ONLY feast-keeping, pro-Jewish voice on the staff, so your accusations being directed at me are very strange. It would be like attacking Scott Jennings as a radical leftist journalist because he's on CNN so he MUST hate President Trump. I think your anger is misdirected and you're definitely bearing false witness against me.
I will accept every single denial you posted in your reply as the Gospel truth and readily apologize for the confusion. HOWEVER, SOME ONE IS DOING THAT THERE. And even given that what you just wrote is 100% accurate, you still admit to being part of a site that does exactly what I thought YOU are doing. So why on earth would you post at a site where even HALF of what I reported is the case? Why in the world would you continue being part of a site that IS filled with filthy language, where there IS vicious and demonic Jew-hate, where there IS violence porn, where there IS trivial nonsense about cars and sports and video games, instead of serious news articles that could help patriots save the country from people who think like the other editors and the owners do? Since you used an analogy to dismantle my argument, let me close with one of my own. You sound like a man who admits he is a card-carrying member of a group of cannibals who meet once a week for a delicious feast, but insists he does not eat human flesh and has no idea why any person would confuse him with those who do. Given that you DO work at TLD, and since you deny every single thing I thought was the case about you, my question is: WHY would you stay on there?
Thank you for the reply and apology.
We don't just do battle in our own convenient bubble. Articles (such as this one) would no longer appear to the millions of monthly visitors at TLD if I leave.
Having some control over some of the content is better than leaving in "protest" and leaving its wide audience to only get the woke right side of the story.
I apply free speech on a personal level to everything I do. That's not a 1st Amendment thing; I'm not talking about government censorship. On my site, jdrucker.com, I post what I want seen. On TLD, I also post what I want people to see while others post what they want people to see.
Unfortunately, jdrucker.com gets about 1/300th the monthly visits of TLD. So if I want to reach people with good content, it must intermingle with content that I don't agree with.
I could avoid dining with cannibals and leave everyone there to only get one side of the story while no longer exposing good content to the masses. That would certainly make my life easier and exponentially less stressful. But I choose to fight the good fight even if it means doing so in unfriendly venues, and even if it means I get daily emails from people who think I'm the one guy posting 200 stories per day on TLD.
I've learned to accept attacks from people who, for some reason, think that I own TLD. Lord willing someday people will go to my site with my name on it that I actually own.
But there's something else to consider. Working at TLD has been a true blessing. As you noted, it wasn't always like this. I've met more people and expanded my reach to a greater audience as a result. Just because I don't agree with others that work there doesn't mean I should leave. I appreciate what TLD has allowed me and I pray that someday I can bring some or all of them to the truth.
Thank you for the respectful and informative reply. Though I don't agree with every position and view you've taken, at least I do, finally, understand that TLD is not your site, and repeat my apology. It is a tremendous relief to know that you are not the one gleefully calling Netanyahu "Satan", eagerly using the word "fuck" in titles, and passionately posting disturbing violence porn at every chance. I still cannot understand why you would stay there; your defense, in my view, doesn't come close to explaining a Christian's decision to remain at a site that has devolved to what TLD has sickeningly become. I was one of that site's first faithful readers, having believed what the founders promised (about it being a conservative alternative to TDR) and now see it as nothing less than a mockery of that claim. As a mere shell of what it was and what it could & should still be. I have spent literally TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS patronizing the companies that appear at TLD, and now feel as if I was a fool to believe in them and to invest in them. Maybe that is why (though it is comforting to know YOU are not the one driving it into the ground) it is so frustrating to see what it has become - a site that is no longer conservative, no longer Christian, and a place that horrifically misuses the sacred right to a free press. You might be better off with the honest cannibals or the folks at CNN - at least they don't pretend to be something other than what they are! But the best to you at what, and where, you believe God has called you to. Keep up the good work, faithful servant.
It is such a fascinating subject.
i have two topics related to this that, every single day, i love to toy with:
1) humans must become more humble, have great humility in order to reach any aspect of truth;
2) the concept in quantum physics where the sole and mere act of observation changes the mass of a sub-atomic particle.
We modern humans know so darn little about the universe we live in, however, too many of us believe we know it all or most of it. LOL
JDR should probably chuckle a bit. Engage in nerd-speak and one should expect it in response. Too many of the concepts in the article and some comments are that to me, which indeed may be my failing.
As mentioned or suggested by others in comment herein when we talk of laws of the universe and the God who made them the universal truth for us is that the mind of the lawgiver is unknowable at our pathetic abilities to understand. Our rigid rules for such things are not "law" but rather that we have an operating theory that we can use to predict things in our very limited way as far as our perception allows. We are but children with a set of shapes that our curiosity tries to fit together initially to make things but later in a lack of humility extending from original sin, we pretend to have the power to fully understand perhaps with an (delusional) eye to be as powerful as God.
Hubris takes over. We pretend to fully know what comprises those blocks we are playing with and we too often try to force fit them. Both folly. And darned if we do not find our presumptions, our awarding of the term "law" are not only incomplete but may be something beyond our wildest imagination and capacity to understand. Physical "laws" it seems still reduce to manmade concepts and superficial logic. God is not so limited. What man calls a physical law is but a trite understanding. In the pursuit some discover humility, others just another reason for the research grant grift.
What we call laws may only be the most superficial of understandings. The only real law is God and what He imparts physically we can only sort of feel our way around. And maybe "time" is one with God (how is that for some metaphysics). The moral law has intricacies and having discernment about that is more about what the Law Giver has tasked us to do for his purposes. Thinking we can fully fathom the rest is often a joke maybe by a spirit that wants to divert us.
JDR's attempt to reconcile what people think they know with what the Bible says is fine maybe instructive to some but never lose sight that we are blind except to what God gives us to see.
Great article but a simpler explanation is provided in Scripture itself in the numerous descriptions of God stretching space. Job 9:8; Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1 all present the heavens as something God stretches, spreads, or spans—often with a participle, as present work rather than a finished past act. Genesis 1’s raqia is an expanse. Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1 add that the heavens wear out and will be changed.
That language matches the physics of this article without a new constant. Genesis 1 describes an act of extreme energy density. In general relativity, clocks run slow where density is high. As space expands and density falls, the dilation eases. A few thousand years of proper time on a forming Earth can therefore sit beside vast cosmic process farther out, while the speed of light remains unchanged and no finished history need be painted into the beam. Today the timelines run together, which is why ordinary relativistic corrections suffice.
Stretching supports expansion; it does not by itself prove a young Earth. That still rests on Exodus 20:11 and the genealogies. The smoothness of the cosmic microwave background also remains a difficulty for a strongly geocentric well. A global initial-state dilation, followed by the stretching Scripture already names, is the cleaner reading.
The heavens declare His glory. They also declare that He stretched them. That is the simpler account.
This solves the "smoothness" problem:
Scripture does not place the earth at the bottom of a unique gravitational well. It places the earth under a heaven God stretched as a whole.
Isaiah 40:22 says He sits upon the circle of the earth and stretches the heavens as a curtain and a tent. The earth is inhabited space beneath that expanse, not the center of a special well whose depth would mark the sky. Job 26:7 says He hangs the earth upon nothing and stretches the north over emptiness. That is the opposite of an earth-centered density peak. Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, and 45:12 treat the stretching of the heavens and the founding of the earth as companion acts of the same Creator, not as a privileged clock at one location.
The opening of Genesis is likewise global. “Let there be light” and the forming of the raqia are spoken over the whole creation. The text never says time ran slowly only where Adam would stand. Psalm 19 says the heavens declare God’s glory through all the earth and that their line has gone out through all the world. A microwave sky that is nearly the same in every direction fits that kind of proclamation better than a map whose hot and cold spots betray a well with earth at the bottom.
The participle verses matter here. God stretches the heavens. The action belongs to the heavens as such. As density falls with that stretch, dilation falls everywhere the stretch reaches. Earth clocks need no separate catch-up device and no unique well. Exodus 20:11 still fixes the earthly week. It does not require earth to occupy a special potential that would wrinkle the leftover light.
So the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background is not a refutation of Genesis. It is a difficulty only for the extra assumption that earth sat in a deep, local well. Scripture never makes that assumption. It describes a spoken beginning of extreme density and a heaven God stretched. That is a global initial state, then expansion. Relativity can be asked what clocks do in that regime. It should not be asked to defend a geocentric well the text does not teach.
Well written, as always, JD. I think! I only understood MAYBE 50% of what you've said here, so i doubly thank our Creator for giving us the Genesis Scriptures. It tells me God is all knowing, and all powerful, and the source of perfect love, and of all that is good. That's Him showing, yet again, extreme kindness to the likes of me and others who might have skipped too many science classes. But don't get me wrong... i do enjoy the science as far as i can understand it, and I've always enjoyed what and how you write, including this.
But for me, once I've crossed into the land of advanced (?) physics, i fall back on that old bumper sticker of faith: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" 😁
Thank you for continuing as you do.