Recently I've been reading books that give a summary of scientific knowledge, especially in the areas of physics and math as they relate to the origin of the universe. I'm trying to get a grasp of how solid the modern underpinnings of science are, and my findings so far are that several hypothesis that are well established in the scientific community appear to be questionable at best.

One reason for doing this is that according to the vision in Daniel 2 of the image, our civilization is very much inferior to not only the Babylonians, but also to every major civilization before us. One question that arrises from this is 'How or in what ways is our culture inferior to the Babylonians and other cultures?' Science and art natually come to mind first, but there are other ways that also present themselves - government, architecture, philospophy, religion, morality, individual industry, etc. So we have to ask ourselves the question I think, 'How could the Babylonians possibly be so culturally superior to us that their civilization is as gold compared to iron and clay?'

This idea is immediately dismissed by most moderns because it runs completely contrary to evolutionary thought - that man is ever progressing in his evolution. And they will immediately point to modern technology as the best proof of our 'progress.' But the image vision says exactly the opposite. Which is right? The more I study the more I am convinced that man in everyway has retrograded since the times of ancient Babylon. While it is true that the light of the Reformation and the renassance rescued the west from the brink of self destruction, inspiration still presents our cultural achievements subsequent to the Reformation as vastly inferior to the ancient cultures. I'll say more about what evidence I'm relying on later, but I'm asking for help right now on some questions I have that may not seem directly related but will eventually lead back to this topic.

The first questions I have are for people involved in the sciences, but anyone is welcomed and encouraged to take a stab at them:

Einstein's theory of General Relativity, if I understand it correctly, says that nothing in the physical universe travels faster than light. What proof do we have that that hypothesis is correct? It may be true that light (which they say is one form of electro-magnetic radiation) is the fastest thing that our senses are capable of measuring but how solidly has it been proven that nothing travels faster. Doesn't the unusual behaviour of matter at the sub-atomic level point in some ways to forces and speeds that we do not understand?

I'm told that experiments have shown that information can travel instantaneously in the universe at the subatomic level. Doesn't this also affect Einstein's theory?

I'm just starting to look into quantum mechanics a little. Einstein found it to be false and spent a great deal of effort, most of his later years in trying to disprove it, but it is generally accepted today. One objection to it is that it says that all the molecules of a gas in a cylinder lets say, will if time lasts indefinitely, according to the laws of probablility, be in one corner of the cylindar at a given moment in time. That has never been known to happen, but almost all scientists say that it could. Doesn't common sence and experience say the opposite?

No replies? Well then, I have a short essay that gives a summary of what I think is the current situation in the scientific community. I’ve shared this with a prominent creation scientist and I’m waiting for his critique, but in the mean time, I thought I’d share it here:


Einstein’s theories of relativity (he offered two – the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity) may be useful for predicting certain physical phenomena but given that his theories don’t account for several behaviours in physics we should cognizant of the possibility that these theories and others such as those of Heisenberg may only be rough approximations, similar to the theories of the ancient Greeks whose astronomical models approximated reality, but included some inaccuracies and invalid assumptions.

For example, one of the assumptions of Einstein’s theories – that everything in the universe is relative to physical light; that nothing travels faster than light – is intuitively false. In contrast to Einstein, the scriptures state that all of creation, the visible and the invisible, is sustained and upheld by the invisible and active ‘word of His power’. Interestingly, the ancient heathen also understood and acknowledged this principal - that the material and temporal world is sustained and nurtured by the powers of the invisible universe. Luke records the Apostle Paul as quoting the ancient philosophers who said “In Him we live and move and have our being”. In contrast to today’s unreasoning arrogance and sophistry, the ancient philosophers freely acknowledged the existence and superiority of the invisible realm, the interaction between the two, and the complete dependence of the visible universe upon the invisible universe.

Fundamentally therefore, the philosophy of the ancients was far superior to what exists in western society today. The ancient’s conception of truth in comparison with modern thought is as gold in contrast to iron. The mind-numbing and blind belief in only the physical among modern scientists and philosophers is in fact as primitive and flawed as the thoughts of the non-existent Neolithic man from the evolutionist’s incredible credo.

This unhappy state of ferment in modern thought has almost come full circle in recent years with the spiritual and invisible now being accounted for through the back door of black holes and parallel universes of one kind or another. Physicists today struggle to supply the cosmological answers by opening to the philosopher areas that allow for the existence of magic and the paranormal but only as the direct result of physical phenomena. Modern cosmologists, most of whom are physicists, generally continue to deny the existence of an intelligent and active Creator and Sustainer.

However, there is one more step in the ferment of modern thought. The final step in the ‘evolution’ of man will no doubt be a full acknowledgment of the paranormal as existing on its own independent of physical phenomena. But even as this reality dawns on modern thought, the evolutionist is subjected to the greatest of all delusions; ie., that man is intrinsically predestined to become his own god, at one with the supernatural realm through his own intrinsic goodness, intelligence and innate deity. Again this is in contrast to the ancients who apparently intuitively understood that 1) God does exist and 2) that they were not Him.

But back to Einstein and relativity. . . Defining the universe in terms of the physical only – ie., that which can be sensed because it reflects electromagnetic radiation (light etc.) – Einstein implicitly denied the greater realities of creation, those of the invisible realm. In contrast to relativity, the Bible styles Christ the benevolent Creator of both the visible and invisible. The relativistic model has had the unfortunate effect of leading men and women to accept the false notion that the invisible universe is somehow less real or desirable than the physical. This is again in direct contrast to the teachings of the word. The unseen universe is in fact the greater reality and the more desirable state. ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit’ it we are told. Nevertheless, be that as it may, the unseen universe is as far superior to the temporal world as the heaven is higher than the earth. The gospel teaches that this unseen world which has the New Jerusalem as its capital is in fact the rightful home of those who follow Truth. The Holy City is the greatest of all realities and it will be revealed to and bequeathed to those that see it now only by faith.

The cosmology of the Bible therefore is one in which the physical ultimately undergoes a supernatural transformation. Those who acknowledge and love the Creator will be transformed and translated to the greater realm, the greater reality; and the same is true of the earth. The earth also is transformed at the end of the seventh millennium when God recreates the earth a second time.

The human mind has difficulty imagining such altered states that are not subject to the same laws of time and space that we experience now, but according the sure word of prophecy, there will come a time when the ‘heavens will be rolled up as a scroll’ and the ‘elements will melt with fervent heat’. This is the precursor to the new earth. At that time heaven and earth will merge; the now invisible throne of God will appear and become visible and the capital city of the universe, the New Jerusalem will ‘descend out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’. A transformed, eternal earth will be the central point of the universe and the God of love and justice will be its King; His coregent will be Christ, and the meek will be the inheritors of the earth. The inhabitants of the unfallen worlds, the ‘sons of God’, will once again shout for joy and the earth will then be the capital planet and great centre of the new creation.

I'm following along, Mark, but where does Babylon the civilization come in on this? I just saw it's main gate, the Ishtar Gate in Berlin's Old Museum, so I know how colossal the city was.

Can you describe the gate a bit more - its architecture and art.

In the last post I mentioned the philosophy that the Apostle Paul quoted. This was very likely from one or more of the Greek philosophers. I’m suggesting that if the ancient Greek’s accepted wisdom was so much closer to reality than that of today’s ‘wisdom’ or understanding of the cosmos, and if Greek culture is inferior to Babylonian culture according to Daniel 2 as brass is inferior to gold, then we should expect that the wisdom of the Babylonians, their understanding of the cosmos and man’s position in it, was very likely much more accurate and enlightened than even the Greeks.

This tends to be born out by the fact that Babylon’s greatest king was wise enough to place a prophet of the true God in charge of the entire empire as his vice regent. In contrast can you picture any of the most enlightened Emperors of the Roman Empire doing this. Yet this happened a second, third and fourth times under Darius and Cyrus and Xerxes, under the gold and silver empire of Daniel 2. Significantly, it did not happen in later world empires. The Romans, rather than honouring John and Christ were instrumental in killing them. In terms of enlightenment, the Roman Empire appears to be the dullest of the dull in Bible prophecy notwithstanding that western society thinks precisely the opposite. (I should correct that last statement. Our society thinks very highly of Roman culture, but even more highly of ancient Greek culture. Even in our unenlightened state, there is general agreement still regarding the superiority of Greek culture over that of the Romans) But again, notice that the wise magi came from the east, rather than from the direction of Rome or Greece.

The main point I’ve been belabouring is that there is good reason to think that modern culture is indeed quite inferior to what the Babylonians enjoyed. I may have gone a little too far in my emphasis. Let me add that the Reformation revived western culture to an astonishing degree, but that if we were to take for example what appears on television today as a valid measurement of popular culture and combined that with what is the accepted wisdom in the universities of the west, we would find that in general our society is quite degraded compared to what the Babylonians enjoyed.

Today we are inundated with junk food, junk music, junk art, junk entertainment etc. Can you imagine the noble King of Babylon giving the slightest attention to Mic Jagger? But in modern society Jagger has been knighted by her majesty Elizabeth II, along with Paul McCartney and I think Elton John. Doesn’t this give us some understanding of the inferior nature of modern culture?

Another good indicator -- Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments where he asks pretty simple questions of the man/woman on the street, and most don't know the answers.

Sure I'll do even better than trying to discribe it Mark: I'll link you to the actual site of the actual Ishtar Gate at the actual museum where I saw it!!

"The stones will cry out"...in the Latter Days

Thanks Ikan. The thing that immediately strikes me from the picture is that although this is a city wall, the gate has a finished look, more like the interior of a mansion than the stockade of a fortress. If the Babylonians had the wealth and resources to deocate their outer city walls like this, imagine what the interior of their homes might have been like, especially of the wealthy.