The Sky is Falling: Solid Atmosphere Theory

[shernren]

Worried that science is beating the Bible left right and center?
Paranoid about atheists putting unScriptural ideas in your head in school?
Scared that you're reading fallen scientific statements into the Holy Book?

Fret not!

Here are the answers!

Introducing the next big fundamentalist counter-assault against the bastion of evil God-denying scientists:

Solid Atmosphere Theory

That's right, it's time to go back to basics, folks! The Hebrews believed by divine revelation that the sky was a solid cast dome across the earth ... and so can you! Learn how to defend your faith from the evil speculations of atheistic outer-space theory (AOST) astronomers! Sure you will be made fun of, by Christians and non-Christians alike, but remember that Jesus promised that we who know the truth will be persecuted, so stand strong knowing that you aren't being laughed at because you're wrong, but because you're right - and because they can't bear to admit it!

"In The Beginning"

Romans 12:2 tells us that we are to stop conforming to the ways of this world and to renew our minds by the power of God's Word. This means that we must take God's Word as the authority in everything. Let God be true and every scientist a liar! Especially the AOST lies they have been spreading about outer space!

So let's go back to the very first chapter of Scripture:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."
Genesis 1:14, 15 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Now, I want all of you to take off your scientific glasses and read Scripture for what it says. Forget all the scientific lies that you've heard since young about the solar system, about the galaxies, about outer space. Read the passage with an open mind and find its plainest meaning. In fact, you should be childlike in your faith.

What is the obvious meaning of this passage? Why, that the heavens in Genesis 1 are the skies! The sky appears blue because there are waters above it, and we all know that water is blue. Stars appear to be in the sky. Birds fly across the face of the sky.

"But", you'll tell me, "didn't we learn from young that the stars are very far away in outer space?" Yes you did - but you didn't learn it from Scripture, did you? You learned it from science! And then you took evil OAST lies and read them into Scripture and thought that Genesis 1 was talking about outer space when it really wasn't. If you let Scripture judge science, instead of the other way around (you poor creature who have been compromising for years without knowing it!) you would clearly see that you should let Genesis tell you that the stars are in the sky, and reject science, instead of letting science tell you that the stars are in outer space, and reject Genesis!

When we let Genesis speak for itself we see clearly that God intended us to believe that the atmosphere is actually a solid dome, that stars are hung from very high up in it, and that birds fly across it. Not in the atheistic nonsense that is AOST. Of course God created everything that exists, as is stated clearly in John 1, and so if God did not create outer space, then we must conclude that outer space does not exist! But then, why have we been taught all this while that outer space exists?

Science Falsely Called

The Bible warns that in the end-times many false prophets will lure away the people of God. Indeed, AOST is a modern invention. None of the Church Fathers believed that outer space existed, and neither need you!

AOST is not only a modern invention, it is full of atheistic propaganda. First note that AOST has always been promoted by atheists. Stephen Hawking is an atheist, and so is Carl Sagan. Furthermore, all atheists believe in AOST, and none of them believe in Solid-Atmosphere Theory. Even Richard Dawkins has said*: "The ... modern ... scientific ... theory ... of ... outer ... space ... has ... made ... it ... possible ... to ... be ... a ... self ... consistent ... atheist." (*He spread this statement out over several speeches and written articles in order to obfuscate his evil stand, so that only anointed Solid Atmosphere Interpretation believers will be able to pick out his blasphemous statement regardless of context! Quote-mining is a divine privilege!)

Secondly, AOST teaches us that the universe is infinite. Clearly this is an attempt by fallible man to exchange the glory of the immortal, infinite God for the glory of the universe. Before AOST, people worldwide only had one infinity in which they could put their faith: God. Only God was infinite; everything else finite. But now with the invention of outer space, atheists have an infinity to devote their worship to. Outer space is an idol intended to usurp the infinity of God!

Thirdly, AOST teaches us that we are very small in relation to the universe. What sort of a God would create endless vistas of vacuum and void all for the sake of a few teratonnes of organic matter and minerals? Is God that wasteful? Are we so small in God's eyes? AOST would relegate us, from being at the center and the majority of the universe, to making less than one part in a gazillion of the universe's matter and space, strung on some insignificant arm of an insignificant galaxy in space full of wonders. Not only that, "outer space" is full of wonders like black holes and quasars which seem to be far more interesting than man or earth. Such anathema! The Bible clearly teaches that man is the pinnacle of creation, and God forbid that anything be more glorious than man! AOST is clearly an attempt to make us so small that if there was a God, He wouldn't care about us. The God of AOST is a God who has billions of other galaxies to look after besides ours: how then can He have any thought for us?

Fourthly, AOST is an attempt to subjugate the glory of God to rational understanding. The Bible declares that the heavens declare the glory of God. But to an AOST believer the heavens don't declare the glory of God, they declare a vast emptiness. (And a challenge for AOST believers is that if the atmosphere is simply a thin layer of air around the earth, what keeps it there? Surely nature abhors a vacuum! The atheistic answer is of course not God - they can't admit God, that's why they invented AOST - but gravity, a theory "discovered" by Newton, who had aberrant theology of the Trinity and who practiced alchemy.) What does it mean if outer space is "the glory of God"? It means that "the glory of God" has less than 1 gram of matter per cubic meter for 99% of its volume! How can God's glory be so minute?

AOST makes scientists so big and God so small.

Anticipated Objections to Solid Atmosphere Interpretation

"But we know that outer space exists!"

No, that is only a scientific statement. Remember that the Word of God is the absolute truth: any evidence that appears to contradict the written record of the Word of God is by definition invalid. Genesis says God didn't create outer space, He created a solid dome for an atmosphere, and so anything which declares that outer space exists is against God's Word!

"What about men landing on the moon?"

Again let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible says that in the last days man will be subjected to incredible delusions, and I'm sure that an entire planet being held captive by a bunch of white-suited men bunny-hopping around on a black landscape qualifies as a delusion! Note that there have always been people who theorize that the Moon landings were all hoaxes: but because of the oppression of the evil cabal of science which is controlled by AOSTism, they never get a chance to be heard. They are not being persecuted for being wrong, but for being right.

"What about satellites?"

Let God be true! How do you know that satellites are actually in outer space? I believe that God allows satellites to be stuck to the dome of the heavens, among the stars, and then uses a special force field to distort their signals to make them appear to be transmitting from the irrational construct that atheists call outer space. Ever wonder why we lose some satellites? That's because they break through the dome of heaven, which instantly reseals behind them, and are fried in the glorious light of God's presence.

"What about space exploration and science? You mean all this research money is going to waste?"

Exactly! Remember that AOST theorists only report whatever confirms their theories. When they never get any signal back from their failed probes (which have been fried by God) do you seriously think they will let you know and cast doubt on their indomitable AOST or pull the plug on their sponsorship? There is a massive conspiracy of censorship about failed space experiments! Besides, whatever data they get back obviously makes sense within their AOST assumptions. If we use Solid Atmosphere Assumptions (that space probes get stuck on the dome of the heavens and their signals are distorted) we see why the pictures we get back are so grainy and useless and need expensive computers to process: they are really pictures of the dome of the heavens which is nearly featureless, and the pictures are caused by electronic glitches!

Biblical questions for people who believe in outer space

1. Where did God ever tell you outer space existed?
2. Have you ever seen outer space? If not, doesn't that show that you are believing it by faith? That makes AOSTism a religion, and you can't believe in more than one religion at a time - Christianity or outer space, you choose!
3. Why is it that the stars fall to earth first and then the skies are rolled up in apocalyptic passages? Doesn't that show that the sky is something solid that can be rolled up, and that the stars are interior of it, instead of being exterior to it that can only fall through once the sky is out of the way?
4. Why would God waste His time and energy creating such a big universe if only a small corner of it would be inhabited?

[parody off. 3 minutes late for class already. ]

 

[Willtor]

You know, I heard that the ozone layer is sort of solid, so astronauts have to bring boxcutters with them when they take off (or just a lot of polution... that damages the ozone layer). Then they can get through the solid ozone layer. So I think science really harmonizes, here. Besides, you can't really prove either way, right?

 

[jereth]

Shernren, you are one funny guy. (Don't you have better things to do with your time?!?! )

On a serious note, can I please make a couple of points:
1. You know, I know, and many sensible Bible expositors know very well that the author of Genesis 1 (whether he be Moses, E, Fred, Joe or Larry) believed that the sky was a solid "firmament". That's not going to stop YECs harping on about "phenomenological language", etc.

2. We can state the obvious until we are blue in the face. (Eg. "Genesis 1 has a solid sky." "How can there be day and night without the sun?" "Genesis 1 and 2 have contradictory events.")

Yet YECs will keep coming back with their standard "counterarguments" until they, likewise, are blue in the face. (I.e. "It's not a solid sky." "There was another light source." "They're not contradictory, blah blah.")

3. Despite all their claims, YECists really don't take Genesis 1 very literally anyway. If they did, there'd be none of this "creationist cosmology" nonsense. [see thread: "AiG accepts evolution!"]

4. Maybe we should just give YECists a break! They might listen to us more if we don't make fun of them.


Having said all that, thank you Shernren for putting a smile on my face!

 

[shernren]

[parody on]

The ozone hole is an invention of atheistic scientists who intend to cast doubt on the perfection of God's solid domed atmosphere! The real reason their instrumentation detects an "ozone hole" near the poles is because God's immense spherification forcefield (which distorts space-time at the edges of the earth to make it seem like a sphere to evil heretical people who will not believe His Word) disrupts their instrumentation! Therefore all the fuss about climate change and ozone holes! It is fitting that all this is God's punishment for their unbelief, for if they had known that God has made the earth flat to appear like a sphere, they would not have panicked and been able to enjoy the God-given blessings of CFC refrigerators, trusting in God's providence to fix whatever we do to His environment! (All atheists believe in environmental science too, you know.)

[parody off]

Yes, I suppose it can be funny to people used to laughing at YECs but there is a deeper motive for my writing this behind the pure humor. Yeah, it was funny, but there's a point to this: I'm exercising a slightly modified reductio ad absurdum, taking the central elements of YECism to their logical limit and showing therefore that they are not sensible because of their own merit but only if they are taken to the right extent: and TEs believe the same things, only to different extents.

All the essential elements of YECism are here:

- slick salesmanship
- appeal to emotion

- proclaiming to excise science from Scripture. Compare:
"A literal interpretation of Scripture tells us that the sky is solid!"
"A literal interpretation of Scripture tells us that God made the heavens and the earth in six days!"

- illegitimately transferring the prescientific cultural matrix of knowing the universe into the terms of modern scientism. Compare:
"The Hebrews would have believed that the sky was solid, so should you!"
"The Hebrews would have believed that all animals reproduce after their kinds, and so should you!"

- ethicization of scientific statements. Compare:
"Outer space is atheism's attempt to create an infinity outside of God!"
"Evolution is man's attempt to understand the origins of life outside of God!"

- conflating interpretation with original content and scientific information with extraneous interpretation. Compare:
"Anybody who believes in outer space is letting science, not Scripture, tell them about the universe!"
"Anybody who believes in evolution is letting science, not Scripture, tell them about the universe!"

- construing silence from differing authority as rejection of theory. Compare:
"Show me where in the Bible God tells us that outer space is a vacuum!"
"Show me where in the Bible God tells us that evolution works!"

- construing lack of alternatives as rejection of alternatives in historical figures' opinions. Compare:
"The Church Fathers never believed in outer space!" (although outer space hadn't been discovered for them to believe in or reject)
"The Church Fathers never believed in evolution!" (ditto)

Note that SAT and YECism have the exact same interpretive framework. They have the exact same Bible, too. So why should YECists adhere to YECism with religious fanaticism and not go all the way to SAT? It certainly isn't Scripture. The same Genesis 1 which tells us that God created in six days tells us also that the color of the sky isn't due to Rayleigh scattering (another atheistic, mechanistic, materialistic waving-away of the providence of God!) but due to God's putting waters above it (for what other use would waters above the canopy be?).

The reason is because of popular culture. Culture, not Scripture, tells YECists that YECism is okay while SAT is not. We all grew up in a culture where outer space is a dogma. Practically every other scifi cartoon or series or movie is about people (and/or aliens) gallivanting in outer space. Astronauts are heroes, Columbia was an epic tragedy, the Milky Way testifies to God's glory. Never mind the fact that Jesus' contemporaries (I dare not speculate about Jesus Himself), or Moses, or Paul, or Peter, would never have believed that the Milky Way is made of billions of suns at distances so far that the light from them travels years to meet us (or that light needs time to travel the distance, or that light is reflected off objects into the eye instead of coming out of the eye and meeting objects). While on the other hand evolutionists are always portrayed as atheists, evolution is always portrayed as opposing the Bible, caricatures are made of fish crawling onto land and the male evolving out of a species before the female or other similar incongruities and misunderstandings of evolution. Granted, it's probably not the YECs' fault either - it's the fault of science education which brazenly says evolution is atheistic while utterly and dismally failing to tell people what evolution actually, darnit, is.

Culture tells them it's insane to disbelieve outer space. So SAT is out.
But culture tells them it might be okay to disbelieve evolution.
So YECism is in.

It's not a decision informed by Scripture or by the Holy Spirit of God, but by sheer peer pressure.

 

[Dannager]

Atleast have the courtesy to post such awesome things a few days apart, shernren. We're starting to feel guilty when we can't rep people fast enough to get back around to you in time.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Culture, not Scripture, tells YECists that YECism is okay while SAT is not.

this is worth looking at closer.
the culture of YECism is a subset, for the most part of fundamentalism. There are a couple of other places where this subculture is "out of sync" with the greater general culture.

one place i've been thinking about is demon possession. There is still a significant element of faith healing, casting out demons, deep suspicion of psychiatry in the same churches that sponsor YECism.

it is also the same issue as with YECism.
what is being used as a cultural element vs what is transcendent and transculture. Jesus clearly taught demon possession. He didn't introduce modern medicine when the demon possessed were encountered, he cast out the demons. even more important he gave specific instructions on how to do so.

like YECism, demon possession has the potential to sharpen how we think about the relationship of Scripture to our worldviews and how modern ideas effect both.


thanks for the chuckle on the OP. i can't rep Shernren either.

 

[Willtor]

Don't worry about it. I rep'd him for you. This is why it helps to post in other forums, too. You cycle your rep much faster.

. . .

- construing lack of alternatives as rejection of alternatives in historical figures' opinions. Compare:
"The Church Fathers never believed in outer space!" (although outer space hadn't been discovered for them to believe in or reject)
"The Church Fathers never believed in evolution!" (ditto)

. . .

In my experience, the Church Fathers are largely cited for what they thought on a number of issues, but the processes by which they reached these conclusions are totally ignored. I think this is a faulty perspective in that it is a view that is far more interested in an answer than a solution. But it has not been my experience that God deals in answers, very much. He tends to work through processes to develop His ends.

The obvious example is salvation. People typically ask what the minimum requirements are for salvation, but this is the wrong way of looking at things. Salvation is found in a way of being. One develops a relationship with God. One "works out" his salvation because a person who is saved is growing towards God. Paul argues that one who professes that "Jesus is Lord" and that God raised him from the dead is saved because these two things are the very essence of growing towards God and are antagonistic to worldly living. In the same way that being forgiven of our debts and our forgiving of our debtors cannot be separated, so the nature of saving grace inherently leads a person to closer fellowship with God.

It is a solution, not an answer. When we approach the Scriptures or the Church Fathers for answers, clearly we are looking for the wrong things. A man who sees x + 4 = 7, and is merely told x = 3 knows the answer. Furthermore, anybody who asks him will get the correct answer. But heaven forbid somebody asks him about x + 4 = 8. He will almost certainly still say that x = 3.

 

[shernren]

Culture, not Scripture, tells YECists that YECism is okay while SAT is not.

this is worth looking at closer.
the culture of YECism is a subset, for the most part of fundamentalism. There are a couple of other places where this subculture is "out of sync" with the greater general culture.

it's something I don't really get. how people can have incredulity for some scientific theories but not others. I think there's something about the non-scientific mindset. I'm a science-inclined person so I soak up new theories like sponges soak up water. But resistance towards science is something I don't get.

So far I've been generalizing about how they believe science they understand and disbelieve science they don't. But I think that might be an over-generalization ... maybe culture is the missing element. Our culture is inherently accepting of some science and very suspicious of others. For example the demon possession thing you noted may be a Christianization of our culture's inherent "thing" for the paranormal - clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc. Mediums have spirit guides, the Christian position on mediums is that they are against Christianity, we embrace wholesale the idea that demoniac behaviour is bad without examining what exactly demoniac behaviour is.

Similar trend to creationism, isn't it? Evolution is an atheistic thing, we embrace wholesale the idea that evolution is bad, we never figure out what evolution really is. Then AiG and ICR sell us a picture of evolution ludicrous, under siege from both within and without the scientific community, and we mentalise that so this is why I don't believe in evolution! without examining why. Somehow from what I examine about AiG's claims (the more I read the less I believe people actually write such things!) it seems that the trend isn't to reject evolution because of Scriptural record, but to reject evolution based on its metaphysical implications. Which is curious. Why is it that for most laypeople it's the other way around - that the "record" takes precedence over implications?

Come to think of it, the whole manichean framework of "bad science - good science" has a lot in common with the whole fantasy / sci-fi milieu. Evil scientists facing off against heroes saving the world, or the good guys disenchanting the evil wizard. Evolution is the conventional knowledge that the Great Dark King cannot be assaulted and creationism is the secret weapon, the knowledge of how to melt down The One Ring. An enticing worldview although quite un-Christian. And of course it must be evil and terrifying to have to believe that the other side might just be right...

 

[jereth]

Professor Shernren,

I am thoroughly impressed by your proposed Solid Atmosphere Theory. It is truly sad that for so long Christians have allowed themselves to swallow the lies told by so-called "scientists" who in fact deny our Creator.

After much thought and study, I would like to propose a more comprehensive Biblical Scientific Theory of Everything (BSTE), which incorporates SAT as well as further truths as expounded in the Scriptures.

1. The sky is indeed a solid dome above our heads, with the sun, moon and stars embedded within. (Gen 1:6-8, 14-19).
2. A vast ocean of water does indeed lie above the sky. (Gen 1:6, 7)

3. Day and night do not result from the rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun. In fact, the sun has nothing to do with producing day and night. Day and night exist simply by God's ordination (Gen 1:3-5). If we took away the sun, day and night would still occur -- as evidenced by the fact that there were 3 days and nights prior to the creation of the sun on Day 4 of creation week.

4. The moon is the ruler of the night (Gen 1:16), just as the sun is the ruler of the day. Therefore, it is an error to believe that the moon can rise during the daytime. Claims that the moon has been visible during the day are based on illusion or deception by the devil. Or, alternatively, at the time of the curse the moon's orbit was permanently disrupted so that it began to rise during the day -- in contrast to God's original intention.

5. Again, it is an error to believe that the moon merely shines by light reflected from the sun. Scripture clearly says that the moon is itself a "light" (Gen 1:16); therefore it must radiate light of its own.

6. In the beginning, marine animals did not eat. This is because God gave plants as food for the land animals and birds, as well as for mankind (Gen 1:29, 30), but he did not ordain food for marine animals. Marine animals only started eating after the fall, when creation was no longer "very good" but rather increasing in entropy.

7. There are no such thing as bacteria or protozoa. God clearly tells us in Genesis 1 that he made sea creatures and birds (Gen 1:20-21), as well as beasts of the land (Gen 1:24-25). There is no mention of any other types of creatures. Bacteria and protozoa do not exist, or are perhaps illusions/creations of the devil.

8. Fungi, mushrooms and seaweed were not part of the original creation. They are not "plants", and do not yield seed or bear fruit. Therefore they cannot have been created on Day 3 (Gen 1:11, 12). Obviously, they must have started growing only after the fall, as part of the curse.

I submit this theory for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jereth

 

[Athene]

Shenren, your post is going on my top 10 best ever posts list . . . yes I have one. Would you consider posting this on creation and evolution forum, there are some diehard YECs there that don't seem to post on this forum and I would very very much like to see their reaction to this.

 

[shernren]

Dr. Jereth,

I assent to your declarations and rejoice to find a contemporary displaying such zeal for the literal, ultra-chronistic (which our opponents distort as "anachronistic" ) meaning of Scripture! May I append further Scriptural background to your points!

3. Day and night do not result from the rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun. In fact, the sun has nothing to do with producing day and night. Day and night exist simply by God's ordination (Gen 1:3-5). If we took away the sun, day and night would still occur -- as evidenced by the fact that there were 3 days and nights prior to the creation of the sun on Day 4 of creation week.

Furthermore, the glory of God rests entirely on the duration of day being independent of the sun's movement:

Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
(Psalms 19:4-6 ESV)

The sun is said to run his course with joy, which has been set for him: this means that the sun is not allowed to determine how long the day is, but that God has determined how long the day is, and told the sun just how fast to run! Incidentally, this disproves the theories of atheistic scientists out to disprove the Word of God who say that the earth's rotation is slowing down. If the earth's rotation is slowing down it can only be a result of the Fall: hence, there was no friction whatsoever on earth or in the heavens before the Fall. This demonstrates the scientific incompetence of the heretics who say that the earth is round or that it goes around the sun.

7. There are no such thing as bacteria or protozoa. God clearly tells us in Genesis 1 that he made sea creatures and birds (Gen 1:20-21), as well as beasts of the land (Gen 1:24-25). There is no mention of any other types of creatures. Bacteria and protozoa do not exist, or are perhaps illusions/creations of the devil.

In fact, since Adam was told to name all creatures, and since he could not have named any creatures he could not see, we can conclude that any creatures invisible to the naked eye do not exist. What evil scientists observe under microscopes are either optical illusions, deceptions by the devil, or the animated footprints of angels and demons who have waged battle in the human body - since we know from the inspired theology of the medievals that an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This is corroborated by the fact that the Bible never tells us to use medicine for our sicknesses. This only makes sense if microscopic pathogens, which modern medicine almost exclusively purports to target, do not exist. Notice how much the modern scientific profession has vilified people who do not believe that AIDS is caused by microscopic pathogens, such as Phillip Johnson - may God reward them for being persecuted by the ignorant status quo conservers!

8. Fungi, mushrooms and seaweed were not part of the original creation. They are not "plants", and do not yield seed or bear fruit. Therefore they cannot have been created on Day 3 (Gen 1:11, 12). Obviously, they must have started growing only after the fall, as part of the curse.

Additionally, fungi and mushrooms are saprophytes which eat dead organic matter. Since nothing died before the Fall, even if they had existed they would have had nothing to eat, which is precisely why God (as you noted) did not create them.

(ROTFL!)

Shenren, your post is going on my top 10 best ever posts list . . . yes I have one. Would you consider posting this on creation and evolution forum, there are some diehard YECs there that don't seem to post on this forum and I would very very much like to see their reaction to this.

But this is precisely what the atheists have been saying: that Christianity is just a bunch of myths. I'm not prepared to put this there where it would back up their arguments liberally.

But to the YECs here, this is my challenge:

Show me a Scriptural boundary which allows you to believe in YECism but forbids you from believing in Solid Atmosphere Theory.