Cosmos: A Cosmic Lie

Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey is the Obamacare of science. Proponents of universal health care promised the impossible: insuring tens of millions more people who would get better coverage at less cost. Those impossible claims proved, well, impossible to deliver.

Like Obamacare, Cosmos tells tall tales. It presents a worldview asserted to be scientifically sound – proven to be true – despite the impossibility of science to ever prove its accuracy.

The Big Lie

Image

The Big Lie is a propagandistic term invented by Hitler, who wrote that people are inclined to believe a “colossal” lie because “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Satan’s biggest lie is denying the existence of God even though the heavens and the earth testify to His existence and glory. The host and producers of Cosmos have fallen for that lie and they present several colossal lies of their own in this series: among them, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Cosmos treats those two theories – both of which deny the existence of a Creator God – as if they were scientific fact despite the fact that science is literally incapable of ever proving those theories to be true.

Why are those theories unprovable? Because no one living here today was alive at the birth of the universe or the birth of life. Science observed neither event and can never recreate either event.

In explaining the existence of a creation without a Creator and of life without a Life-giver, Cosmos upends reality.

Moreover, in denying the existence of a Creator and a Life-giver, Cosmos contends that the Earth is insignificant and humanity is inconsequential. As a direct consequence of those conclusions, animal rights activists, population control proponents, and the environmental movement wage war on mankind in the interests of saving the planet and non-human life from human beings.

Godlike Powers

The very first words of the series reiterate Carl Sagan’s famous epigram: “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

Those pseudo-religious words are catchy, but are they true?

Sagan’s words mirror and mock the biblical identity of the God he denies. Revelation 1:8 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

But could Sagan be right? “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

How could anyone possibly know? In order to know, one would have to have experienced the cosmos in all of its fullness from beginning to end – every second of every particle in every portion of the cosmos.

Only God could do that!

But the producers of Cosmos can’t see that because in accepting Sagan’s assumption, they deny the very existence of the spiritual realm, a realm which cannot be measured or quantified.

Objectivity Redacted

Choosing to deny even the possibility that there might be a Creator is a theological decision, not a scientific one.

The Cosmos host, Dr. Tyson, offered “a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything.”

Sounds great. But science cannot observe the origin of either the Earth or of life. Science cannot replicate either. Science cannot do what Tyson claims it should do.

Tyson repeatedly asserts “question everything,” without questioning his own worldview, assumptions, and conclusions.

Tall Tales

Using slick visuals to capture the imagination, Cosmos tells one big lie after another – all unprovable, untestable, unbelievable. (Except, people tend to believe big lies because they seem too big to be wrong.)

One such tale is that the infinite universe sprang from the infinitesimal. Tyson claimed, “Our entire universe emerged from a point smaller than a single atom. Space itself exploded in a cosmic fire, launching the expansion of the universe and giving birth to all the energy and all the matter we know today.”

This is the wonder of creation without the wonderful Creator.

Which requires greater faith: a staggeringly immense universe of beauty, intricacy, structure, design, and order purposefully created by a wise God out of nothing – or, out of nothing, everything spontaneously and randomly appeared, with design, with order, but without the existence of a higher being?

Consider, what science does observe is entropy: order decaying into chaos – the exact opposite of how the cosmos should be if the Big Bang and evolution were true.

Where did the order come from? Why is it decaying now? Science cannot say, though Christians know.

Another Tyson tall tale: “every living thing is a masterpiece written by nature and edited by evolution.”

Tyson has excised the Creator from the equation, transforming a personal and providential God into an impersonal and mindless process – evolution in nature.

Notice the poetic structure of his scientific claim. Tyson has imbued nature with the ability to write, and evolution with the ability to edit, the “masterpiece” of the cosmos.

Cosmological Faith

Yet another Tyson fantasy: “Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children. … We are made by the atoms and the stars [and] our matter and our form are forged by the great and ancient cosmos of which we are a part.”

The Big Lie on steroids. We are “children” of the stars? We “are forged by the great and ancient cosmos?” Poetry? Yes. Scientific? No.

Stripping God out of existence, evolutionists imbue nature with divine power. They deny the existence of the One who created everything out of nothing but they have faith in evolution and in nature. However, the whole of creation testifies to the existence of a Creator, not the absence of one.

Science and Faith

Cosmos not so subtly likens Christianity to primitive pagan religions. Contrary to history, Cosmos presents faith as inalterably opposed to science, whereas, Christian faith has actually been the inspiration and motivation for many of the major scientific advances of the past millennium.

But Cosmos substitutes the Christian faith of the founders of science for a faith in something that is not science (while calling it science). It has faith in materialistic theories of the universe, not in science.

Claiming Christianity has always opposed science and martyred its leaders, Cosmos attempts to demonize and silence people of faith, even likening us to Nazis and calling us “science-deniers” (equivalent to Holocaust-deniers).

It is their denial of God and of the spiritual realm which animates their unscientific, materialistic worldview. In denying the spiritual dimension, they negate the meaning and purpose of life. If God does not exist, then man is unimportant. Cosmos actually dwells upon the non-special nature of humanity.

One wonders why this so appeals to them? Could it be that the absence of God and the insignificance of man absolves them of accountability?

If there is no God, then there is no moral law.

If there is no moral law, then there are no absolute values.

If there are no absolutes, then we can live life as we choose.

The Cosmos Right Side Up

But Cosmos has it backwards!

The biblical paradigm reveals that all of creation testifies to God’s existence and to His glory. Yet, despite the unfathomable power, wisdom, and glory of a God who can create out of nothing a universe that seemingly has no end, that God chose to fashion human beings in His image so that He might have fellowship with us.

The universe did not randomly materialize out of nothing by itself and life did not appear by chance on our planet for no purpose. Rather, the Creator brought the cosmos into existence to proclaim His existence, and He breathed life into us that we might worship Him and have eternal fellowship with Him.

The Big Lies of the big bang and evolution obscure the incredible truth that God has revealed through His creation, His Bible, and Jesus Christ. Those lies deprive people of the knowledge of God and of the relationship that He wants to have with them.

Far from the purposeless human existence propounded by Cosmos, we should rejoice every day for the gift of life that God has granted us and the relationship that we can now have with Him.

Now that is a cosmic truth.

Update. Nine Scientific Facts Prove the “Theory of Evolution” is False.

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 3 – Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

Scientific Fact No. 4 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 5 – Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 6 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 8 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 9 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Resource: Answers in Genesis special section on Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation-debate/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey.

Update: Scientists discover God.

Update: Science concedes Earth must have had a Creator.

Best-selling author Eric Metaxas wrote in the Wall Street Journal article “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” (Dec. 25, 2014): “In 1966 … astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion – 1 followed by 24 zeros – planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion – 1 followed by 21 zeros – planets capable of supporting life. … But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. … As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis – 0 followed by nothing. …”

Eric Metaxas continued: “What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. … Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: ‘In light of new findings … we should quietly admit that the early estimates … may no longer be tenable.’

“As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero. … In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. … Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? … At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? …”

Eric Metaxas ended: “Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’ … Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ‘the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator … gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.’”

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Cosmos: A Cosmic Lie

  1. Jade Castle

    It’s also worthy of being mentioned that Science claims that dinosaurs and mankind did not exist at the same time. However, the writer of the Book of Job accurately describes not one but TWO animals, one a land animal and the other one a sea animal. How could he have described them so well if he had not even seen them?

    Reply
    1. BrotherWatch Post author

      Science discounts the flood, thereby discounting the only was to understand mankind’s (and the Earth’s) early history. The flood literally changed the Earth and the atmosphere. The panoply encircling the Earth is gone and the Sun’s impact on the planet was radically altered. Their carbon dating techniques, in other words, cannot replicate or extrapolate to a time prior to the flood, when everything (including the continents and oceans) was vastly different. Hence, they posit millions of years instead of thousands.

      Reply
  2. Jade Castle

    It’s also worthy of being mentioned that Science claims that dinosaurs and mankind did not exist at the same time. However, the writer of the Book of Job accurately describes not one but TWO animals, one a land animal and the other one a sea animal. The descriptions do not fit any animals that are alive today. They do fit dinosaurs. . How could he have described them so well if he had not even seen them?

    Reply
      1. BrotherWatch Post author

        For almost the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve, man has sought to explain the creation without a Creator.

        Absent a Creator, man is left to his own devices. But a Creator makes one subservient and responsible for one’s actions.

        The Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are devices to rationalize away the truth and justify the deeds of man.

  3. 4realsies

    Yes, it is a fact that evolution is true, we can look through a microscope and see it happening. The theory of evolution is what explains all of the facts about evolution.

    Similarly, we can look through a telescope, see the redshift and know that the universe is expanding, which means we know it was bunched up very tightly billions of years ago.

    Neither contend your assertion that your invisible friend did it with magic. So why bother throwing out easily debunked lies? Its 2014, anyone can just google “proof of evolution” and reveal you to be a liar. This is really damaging your cause.

    “Cosmos contends that the Earth is insignificant and humanity is inconsequential.”

    This is in response to “the pale blue dot”? I think you have taken gross liberties with a statement of humility. Humanities position is precarious, if we destroy the environment, we destroy ourselves. You don’t have to be cruel to animals to prove that you like humans either.

    “Choosing to deny even the possibility that there might be a Creator is a theological decision, not a scientific one.”

    No, the default position is that any given deity doesn’t exist, its on you to provide proof. You have already conceded that it only exists in a “spiritual realm, a realm which cannot be measured or quantified”.

    “Sounds great. But science cannot observe the origin of either the Earth or of life. Science cannot replicate either.”

    We can observe the evidence. You don’t have to be there right when a tornado tears through town to know one happened.

    “Could it be that the absence of God and the insignificance of man absolves them of Could it be that the absence of God and the insignificance of man absolves them of accountability? If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there are no absolute values.? If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there are no absolute values.”

    There is no god, and yet there are morals, values and laws. That means that accountability is even more important under a non theistic worldview, that means taking a stark appraisal at what really is right and wrong and just, according to what does harm. The bible just doesn’t measure up as a moral instrument.

    http://www.evilbible.com/

    Reply
    1. BrotherWatch Post author

      The existence of the creation testifies of the Creator. From where did everything come from for the Big Bang? It is God who created it out of nothing.

      As for life from non-life. Science cannot create life from dust, as God did.

      As for evolution, science has yet to see one species evolve into another. In which microscope do you see evolution?

      How, in looking through a microscope, can you see the beginning of the universe? The universe is so vast, you can’t see the end of it, let alone the beginning.

      Again, where did it all come from? What is the origin of the universe? The hand of God.

      Reply
  4. 4realsies

    “The existence of the creation testifies of the Creator. From where did everything come from for the Big Bang? It is God who created it out of nothing.”

    Thats not how proof works. It’s just as easy to say that everything exists, so therefore I created everything myself last thursday. Or any of the other creation myths.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

    “As for life from non-life. Science cannot create life from dust”

    This is a pretty interesting subject:

    “science has yet to see one species evolve into another”

    Sure we do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

    “In which microscope do you see evolution?”

    We have the dna, the debates over.

    “How, in looking through a microscope, can you see the beginning of the universe?”

    Telescope, redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

    Reply
    1. BrotherWatch Post author

      You write, “It’s just as easy to say that everything exists, so therefore I created everything myself last thursday.”

      Objectively, everyone knows that is not true, especially people who were here before you were born. YOU – as Creator – can be easily refuted. (As can every human being.) No human being existed at the time of creation. So no human being can refute the One (God) who claims to be the Creator.

      But you reject not only the Creator but actually the creation itself. Where did the whole of the universe come from? Science does not and cannot have the answer. Science cannot go back to that instant in time – before there was time – and observe and measure what took place. Everything from nothing.

      If all accounts of a creation are “myths,” how do you account for the cosmos’s very existence?

      Reply
      1. 4realsies

        “Objectively, everyone knows that is not true, especially people who were here before you were born. YOU – as Creator – can be easily refuted.”

        Just as easily as I debunk any of the man made deities. Consider all of the other gods and creation stories you don’t believe in; I have only gone one god further.

        “So no human being can refute the One (God) who claims to be the Creator.”

        You, a human, make the claim that your god exists.

        If this god of yours was an actual thing, you would be very careful about what claims you make about it because you would be afraid of the consequences of slandering him, but there is no such restraint demonstrated.

        Who are you to say that an omnipotent god isn’t capable of creating evolving life?

        “Science cannot go back to that instant in time – before there was time – and observe and measure what took place.”

        We can however measure enough to prove quite a few claims wrong. If the only thing anyone can honestly say about the subject is that we don’t know, then thats how it is. It’s called humility. Making up a magical solution doesn’t answer any questions to let us make any useful predictions.

  5. Michael Vinson

    Reading that article made me feel like a vacuum had been attached to my head and my brain sucked out.
    I have one question for the article writer, and for the creationists who responded with their ‘facts’. Who ties your shoes? Your single digit IQ meandering is truly mind-numbing. You base every opinion on the notion that the existence of ‘god’ is absolute, that intelligent design is absolute, that creation as laid out in Genesis is absolute. There is not one shred of evidence to back up any of it, yet you use those as a yardstick to measure everything. You falsely use our existence as some sort of ‘proof’ of god. The simple fact we are here says nothing of our origins. The one and only fact it verifies is that we are here. You claim Dr. Tyson, and scientists in general couldn’t possibly know the origins of the universe, because they weren’t there. Yet you people seem to think YOU have the answer, even despite your not being there either, because it says so in your book of magic. Well guess what? I have a book that says there’s a cat in a hat that likes green eggs and ham, so that must be true as well.
    The one singular truth i the entire article was this, “…people are inclined to believe a “colossal” lie because “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” And that is exactly what religion is. You believe the fairy tales, without question, because you can’t believe someone would just come up with this on their own. Guess what? They did?

    Reply
    1. BrotherWatch Post author

      If you found a snazzy racing car in your driveway, would you assume that it spontaneously appeared from nowhere out of nothing or that it evolved on its own from a child’s wagon or gardener’s wheelbarrow? From where did all those dazzling and precise parts appear and how – by time and chance – were they intricately put together in just the right places to work properly? Darwin has no answer for this.

      Even the smallest life-form is too complex and too interdependent with other lifeforms to have evolved on its own.

      A Creator (to create something from nothing) and Maker or Designer (to design everything to fit together into what you would call an ecosystem) is required based upon the evidence of our own eyes.

      Have you considered the scientific facts that support a Creator and Designer? They are innumerable. Here are but a couple.

      If the Earth’s axis was tilted just a little – one way or the other – life on Earth would not exist.

      Unlike everything else, water expands when freezing, forming ice at the top of lakes and rivers. If water contracted when freezing – like everything else – ice would form at the bottom of lakes and rivers, with those bodies of water eventually freezing over completely (and destroying all life within).

      Have you considered the Periodic Table of Elements? It’s amazing design and structure? It suggests a Designer. A Maker.

      What about the myriad and complex laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. – Did these just appear from happenstance? No! They came from the mind of God.

      Evolutionists are the ones who believe in magic, who believe that the cosmos sprang from nothing, life came from the lifeless, and structure arose on its own out of chaos.

      Reply
    2. 4realsies

      ” from nowhere out of nothing ”

      Thats not how evolution works and you know it. Thats how creationism works though- from dirt, with magic, and the dirt was also made with magic, from nothing.

      “by time and chance”

      Lots and lots of trial and error. The mutation is chance, whether it is able to thrive and pass on its genes is determined by the environment and is not random.

      “were they intricately put together in just the right places to work properly? Darwin has no answer for this.”

      Aside from the books he wrote on the subject. And our scientific understanding didn’t stop in the 1800’s either, more than inferences made by fossils, embryology and heredity, we now have genetics, the mechanisms which evolution happens are now fully understood as a mechanical process.

      “Have you considered the Periodic Table of Elements? It’s amazing design and structure? It suggests a Designer. A Maker.”

      Yes, the table of elements is how we arrange our understanding of atoms properties, we made that, its an artificial concept that we use to organize things.

      “If the Earth’s axis was tilted just a little – one way or the other – life on Earth would not exist.”

      Sure it would, the earth tilts every year, its called summer and winter.

      “If water contracted when freezing – like everything else – ice would form at the bottom of lakes and rivers, with those bodies of water eventually freezing over completely (and destroying all life within).”

      If things were different, then they would be different. Lakes freeze completely, and it doesn’t kill all life, There are frogs and fish that can get frozen completely and spring to life when they thaw.

      “What about the myriad and complex laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. – Did these just appear from happenstance? No! They came from the mind of God.”

      Nope, those are things we invented as useful tools to explain the world around us.

      Reply
      1. BrotherWatch Post author

        If evolution were true, there would be avast number of intermediate mutations in the fossil record. There aren’t any.

        The periodic table reflects observed data which shows intricate structure and design which, mathematically, could not occur by chance.

        Lakes freezing from the bottom up would eventually never thaw – frozen permanently. A life killer to be sure.

        Ditto for all of the “invented” laws of physics, etc. which, once again, irrefutably demonstrate the intricate structure and design of the universe and which, mathematically, could not occur by chance.

      2. 4realsies

        “intermediate mutations in the fossil record. There aren’t any.”

        Yes there are. What do you want, the evolution of whales? Cats and dogs? Monkeys and humans? I have nice examples for all of them, but heres a generic list for now.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

        “The periodic table reflects observed data which shows intricate structure and design which, mathematically, could not occur by chance.”

        If you spin a roulette wheel, it is unlikely that any particular number is going to come up, that it lands on one of the numbers however is quite likely indeed. Again, if things were different, they would be different.

        “Lakes freezing from the bottom up would eventually never thaw ”

        why would you say that? thermo dynamics doesn’t care about gravity.

        “irrefutably demonstrate the intricate structure”

        That things have structure doesn’t mean that your invisible friend built it.

      3. BrotherWatch Post author

        You need to have created or designed a roulette wheel before you can spin it. SOMEONE made it. It didn’t materialize out of thin air. As for the periodic table – which reflects the reality it classifies – the incredible relatedness of properties – both vertically and horizontally on the chart – point to a designer.

        Lakes freezing from the bottom up. If water contracted upon freezing – as everything else does – then ice would form on lakes from the bottom up until all life within was dead.

        Re: structure – “The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that ‘some form of intelligence’ was actually behind the creation of the Universe.” See http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/.

      4. 4realsies

        “You need to have created or designed a roulette wheel before you can spin it. ”

        The theory of evolution doesn’t try to explain where life came from, only how it behaves; in the same way that the theory of gravity doesn’t try to explain where planets come from, only how they behave. Most people wouldn’t know how to build a car from raw ore, but you don’t need to in order to discuss how to operate one.

        “As for the periodic table – which reflects the reality it classifies – the incredible relatedness of properties – both vertically and horizontally on the chart – point to a designer.”

        Yes, and his name was Dmitri Mendeleev:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table

        But what does it even say, to claim that something was designed? What attributes are you trying to affix to the world around you?

        “ice would form on lakes from the bottom up until all life within was dead.”

        Lakes freeze entirely already, life goes on.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

        worldnewsdailyreport is not a credible source, these people make similar claims about everyone, you may have heard of darwins deathbed conversion? This is a very old playbook.

      5. BrotherWatch Post author

        The periodic table was organized by Mendeleev based upon observed attributes of the various elements which clearly demonstrate design by a designer.

        A Designer requires Someone outside of the design for the design to exist.

      6. 4realsies

        “The periodic table was organized by Mendeleev based upon observed attributes of the various elements”

        Yes.

        “which clearly demonstrate design by a designer.”

        No. You can’t demonstrate your god, it is only asserted.

        “A Designer requires Someone outside of the design for the design to exist.”

        This is only asserted, not demonstrated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s