It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:
Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”
Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that the stars are nothing more than a decoration to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.
Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”
Ironically, in another part of the Bible, we read:
Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”
If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.
Last year, a documentary was made titled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which seemed to be a direct rebuttal to Al Gore’s film “An Inconvinient Truth”. I have just seen that documenary and quite simply, it is a load of CRAP!
There are several things blatantly wrong with it.
- The film asserts, without any actual evidence, that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than today. For the explanation of that assumption and its refutation, go here: https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/debunking-the-mwp-myth/
- The film nowhere mentions the planet Venus, yet it is there that the power of the greenhouse effect, which the film seems to deny, becomes most obvious. Venus, on both its day and night sides, is far hotter than the day side of Mercury, which is much closer to the Sun! Although the clouds of Venus shield the planet’s surface from most of the sunlight, the atmosphere, which is mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), traps the little heat that gets through.
- The film indicates that there was one obscure scientist that claimed that the greenhouse gases could cause global warming in the 1970s and that he was ridiculed by most scientists at the time. This is simply a lie! In fact, the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperatures was understood by most scientists since the 1900s. The scientist who discovered it was world famous, even winning the 1903 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His name was Svante Arrhenius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ice_ages http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=5971 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrhenius-lecture.html http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
- The film claims that “all the climate change models” predicted that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere would be less than the upper atmosphere and that the discovery that this was not the case falsified the models. But this is flatly contradicted by a statement in Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth”. He said, “Global warming heats the lower atmosphere but actually cools the stratosphere…” This makes sense when you realize that CO2 is heavier than the nitrogen and oxygen that make up most of the Earth’s atmosphere, and therefore would tend to be lower in the atmosphere. An increase in the proportion of CO2 would only be felt closer to the ground, not farther from it.
- The film claims that water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But that is not true, because water vapor forms clouds that actually block sunlight and thus act to cool the Earth, providing a counter to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. By contrast, CO2 never forms clouds and thus can ONLY be a greenhouse gas.
- The film claims that the global warming movement was started by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a way of promoting nuclear power at the expense of fossil fuels. This is nonsense, because while nuclear power may not release greenhouse gases, it causes other types of pollution and has its own grave risks, plus like fossil fuels it is nonrenewable.
- The film claims that efforts to wean poor countries in Africa off fossil fuels and onto solar energy is harmful to their well-being. Never mind the fact that depending on fossil fuels would require an unlimited number of monthly payments to the big energy companies. But using solar panels, however expensive they may be at first, would only require a one-time payment. Plus, efforts to mass produce solar panels would eventually drive their costs down, if only the big energy companies would permit it. And there is an entire vast region, the Sahara Desert, where millions of solar panels could be built and maintained to supply most of Africa with energy.
Need I go on?
Most people have the preception that “pagan” religions, especially those with ancient roots in polytheism, are inferior to monotheistic faiths like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Many pagan religions featured worship of the Sun or a god that was thought to control the Sun in its travels in the sky. Should we think this irrational?
- The Sun is the source of light and heat, without which we would not survive. This is self-evident. By contrast, we have no way of knowing even the existence of the God of the Abrahamic religions, let alone what He does for us.
- We see the Sun every day and we can invent rituals that are based on the movements of the Sun that make perfect sense to the followers of Sun worship. No one has seen God, at least that we have confirmed and the rituals connected to Him in the Abrahamic religions seem to have no relation to natural needs. Is it rational to believe in what cannot be seen?
- All things in the Solar System revolve around the Sun. It also has 99% of the mass of the Solar System, and science can directly access it. We cannot access God via science, and thus we’ve had constant conflict between science and religion as a result.
I would therefore suggest that Sun worship should eventually replace the Abrahamic religions if we are to renew the spirituality of the human race. Then mankind would become more firmly united and at peace and science would advance more rapidly. Imagine what our lives would be like if everyone on Earth were sun worshippers. No more arguments over dogmas or rituals made up by priests to appease a God that does not speak for himself, but appears to speak through prophets who may or may not be telling the truth. No more scriptures that are claimed to be infallible but in fact are deeply flawed. Issues of sexual behavior would have no ties to religion, making the dealing with those issues easier and more realistic. Of course, the sun also causes storms, heat stroke, and sunburns, but at least we would understand the reasons behind that, instead of wondering why our “god” was either punishing us or allowing such evil to occur to us. And we would STILL have something to center our lives around, day by day, and year by year. Many people have a natural need for such rituals for the sake of self-discipline, and we should find ways to accomidate those needs.