Category Archives: Science

Rev. David Rives — Gravity and the Bible

We haven’t posted much lately about the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. That’s not because of any failure of the Drool-o-tron™ to alert us with its sirens and flashing lights whenever one of his videos appears. Rather, it’s because one of our posts about him (from 16 March) has never been indexed by Google. That was Rev. David Rives — New Stars Are Never Seen. Someone at Google seems to be an admirer of the rev.

Nevertheless, we couldn’t ignore him today. The Drool-o-tron™ once again found the rev’s latest video, and the blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: Why gravity only makes sense with a biblical worldview. The actual title of the rev’s video is “Gravity: A force of nature.”

The rev briefly tells us about Newton Einstein as he describes gravity in terms of a middle school text. Then he explains why gravity only makes sense in a biblical world view. In an evolutionary perspective, everything is material, so how can there be immaterial laws in an evolutionary perspective? Also, if everything is the result of random chance processes, why are the laws of gravity the same everywhere? Gravity only makes sense if the creator made the laws of nature.

We checked, and the word “gravity” appears in the bible (King James version, of course) only twice, and both times it’s used as a synonym for “seriousness” or “dignity.” That doesn’t seem to matter. If you want to understand gravity, you need the bible.

The rev is casually dressed in a tan blazer with no necktie, and he’s still the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is a little more than 2 minutes long before the commercial at the end. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Isaac Newton’s End-of-World Prediction

The Daily Express, a national tabloid newspaper headquartered in London, has this attention-grabbing headline: Sir Isaac Newton predicted when the end of the world will come and we don’t have long left. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Sir Isaac Newton predicted when the end of the world will occur, and has been revealed in notes he wrote at the time of explaining the laws of gravity.

And we’re just now learning about it? The tabloid says:

The godfather of physics wrote, in his findings from 1704, the world is set to end on 2060 – exactly 1,260 years after the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. The famous scientist reached his apocalyptic conclusion by analysing the Bible’s Book of Daniel according to his note, but how he reached the conclusion exactly is still a mystery more than 300 years later.

Why is this news just coming out now? The tabloid tells us:

His work on the matter, which was kept in a trunk in the house of the Earl of Portsmouth for 250 years, read: “It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.”

The Earls of Portsmouth kept this book hidden away, and it’s just now being looked at? Here’s more

In his notes, Sir Isaac wrote that “wicked nations” will be in ruins and the Jews will return from “captivity” to their homeland before the end of the world which could be interpreted as the establishment of Israel after the Second World War.

How prescient! Let’s read on:

The notes are on show in Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and the curator of the exhibition, Yemima Ben-Menahem, said that the famous physicist had been guided by religion, and not science.

It’s not science? How do they know? Another excerpt:

Sir Isaac had a morbid fascination with he end of the world, and the topic was even the subject of a 2003 documentary: Newton: The Dark Heretic. The producer of that documentary, Malcolm Neaum, said: “What has been coming out over the past 10 years is what an apocalyptic thinker Newton was. He spent something like 50 years and wrote 4,500 pages trying to predict when the end of the world was coming. But until now it was not known that he ever wrote down a final figure. He was very reluctant to do so.”

That’s the end of the news story — but what about the end of the world? Was Newton right? If so, we have only a bit more than 40 years left.

Calm down, dear reader. There’s no need to panic. Newton spent most of his time on nonsense. Wikipedia’s article on him says “Of an estimated ten million words of writing in Newton’s papers, about one million deal with alchemy.” They also have an article on Isaac Newton’s occult studies. It mentions — and quotes from — his 2060 prediction, and says that manuscript has been known since 2003. Somehow, the Daily Express is just now getting around to mentioning it.

Anyway, as we always do in these end-of-the-world posts, we close with this:

Thats all folks

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Ken Ham: Creationism Gives Us Great Science

This is about a familiar topic for Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title of his new post is Can Creationists Be Innovators?

Before the rise of what we know as science, when virtually everyone was a creationist, humans developed agriculture, the bow & arrow, horse-drawn wheeled vehicles, architecture, etc. The pace of such progress was painfully slow, but shouldn’t surprise us that every now and then, a creationist somehow devises something useful. When something like that happens, it’s important to note that the innovation isn’t derived from a knowledge of scripture.

Even today, according to the Salem hypothesis, engineering types — and that often includes computer scientists — have a tendency toward the creationist viewpoint. More accurately stated, many of the so-called “scientists” who admit being creationists are mostly engineers. There are several examples among the signers of the Discoveroids’ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

We’ve previously written about some of Hambo’s examples of creationists who managed to improve a device, or to invent something. See Ken Ham: Creationist Designs a Bicycle!. Before that, in Ken Ham Presents a Great Creation Scientist, Hambo was raving about Raymond Damadian, described by Wikipedia as: “an American medical practitioner and inventor of the first MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machine.” As we said then:

A “creation scientist” is one who attempts to pervert science so he can claim that it supports his faith-based beliefs in the recent six-day creation of the Earth, the universe, and all species, plus additional goodies like Noah’s Flood. Such ancient tales — even if Damadian believes them — have no scientific or technological relationship to the work for which he is known. … Had Damadian confined his work to the “science” of Genesis, he couldn’t have invented anything — except perhaps some kind of improved horse-drawn chariot.

With that as background, let’s see what Hambo has for us today. We’ll give you some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis. He begins by criticizing Bill Nye, and says:

Creationists can certainly be innovators and engineers (as well as fantastic scientists in any field, even supposed evolutionary ones such as biology, geology, or paleontology — just like the many PhD scientists employed by Answers in Genesis). I’ve publicly challenged Nye many times to provide just one example of a technology that was developed because of a belief in millions of years or evolution. He’s never provided one because, well, there aren’t any. An evolutionary worldview does nothing to further technology — the question of origins has nothing to do with it!

Cleverly done. Just as we say that the “science” in Genesis leads nowhere, Hambo responds by saying that “a belief in millions of years or evolution” doesn’t get us anywhere. But Hambo deliberately misses the point. It’s not merely a belief in millions of years — which is a conclusion, not a presupposition — it’s a firm commitment to studying, testing, and understanding reality — not ancient mythology — that gives us scientific progress. Then he repeats an old clunker:

You see, there are two kinds of science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what was used to put a rover on Mars, develop WiFi, and, for Dr. Damadian, to make the MRI. But historical science deals with the past (e.g., rock layers and fossils), so it isn’t directly testable, observable, and repeatable. So what you believe about the past can directly influence how you interpret the evidence in the present. If you start with a belief in millions of years and evolution, that’s how you’ll interpret the evidence. But if you begin with God’s Word as your starting point, you’ll interpret the evidence through the lens of God’s Word and the history recorded in it.

We’ve debunked that “two kinds of science” too many times already, so we’ll just move on. Hambo says:

We Love Science — and We Want Kids to Love It Too! We want young people to be innovators and scientists because we at AiG love science. We want them to study God’s beautiful creation and universe for his glory and to develop technology to help us fight the effects of the Curse [caused by the sin of Adam & Eve].

The rest of Hambo’s post is nothing but promotion for his books and tapes about creationism for home-schoolers “to help encourage kids to love STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and to think about it biblically.”

So there you are, dear reader. You too can raise your kids to be creation scientists. Who knows — one of them may invent some new and improved version of the loin cloth.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

AIG Says Creationists Love Science

This is a typical load of nonsense from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled Is There Really a War on Science?, written by Avery Foley.

AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, which certainly qualifies her to be one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Popular science advocates often throw around the phrase “science deniers” and refer to a supposed epidemic of science denial sweeping America and other Western nations. … Is the collective body of knowledge and the methodology we call “science” really teetering on the precipice of extinction or, worse, about to be pushed off?


Science, in its most basic definition, means “knowledge.” Science is usually defined as knowledge gained by using the scientific method or perhaps knowledge derived from observations made by our five senses. Is there really a “war on science,” a war on knowledge?

The folks at AIG are shocked — shocked! — at the idea of a war on science. Avery says:

Those who cry foul at creationists or those who deny (or are skeptical of) man-made climate change display their own ignorance of the nature of science. There are two kinds of science: observational and historical. … The second kind of science is historical science. This science deals with the past and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. Fields like paleontology, paleoanthropology, or paleoclimatology fall into this category. You can’t directly test or observe past organisms or climates. So what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence.

[*Groan*] That artificial bifurcation is a common tactic at AIG, and we’ve discussed it several times — originally in Creationism and Science, and also in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. The best rebuttal is The Lessons of Tiktaalik.

After that tired old clunker, Avery tells us:

Many scientists today start from the assumption of naturalism — the belief that nature is all there is. This is not a scientific statement — it cannot be tested using the scientific method or our five senses. It is a philosophical assumption that underlies the worldview of many scientists.

Scientists are fools! Avery explains why creationism is so much better:

Creationists and others reject this assumption and start with a different set of beliefs about the past. In the case of biblical creationists, the starting point is God and his Word. Therefore, the battle is not over the evidence; it’s over two different interpretations of the exact same evidence because of two different starting points.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, why not believe in supernatural phenomena? Scientists can’t disprove them. She continues:

Many scientists, or even lay people, who reject evolution are very educated about evolution yet chose to reject it on scientific, philosophical, or biblical grounds (or a combination of these rationales).


Many creationists love science and get excited about new discoveries and innovations. We simply stand opposed to a worldview-based, naturalistic interpretation of historical science.

Skipping a lot, we come to the end:

This whole idea of a “science denial” epidemic is really just a disingenuous way of trying to make those who reject evolution and catastrophic man-made climate change look foolish, backward, and opposed to new ideas and progress. Creationists don’t deny science. We love science! But we seek to study and research to honor God and uphold the authority of his Word. This difference in starting philosophies results in a difference of interpretation.

Well done, Avery! Similarly, your Curmudgeon doesn’t deny creationism. We love creationism! But we seek to study reality, so we have a difference of interpretation.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article