Neil deGrasse Tyson, Answered

Reads Romans 1 as saying God has already given man all he needs to know the truth, and that men keep suppressing it.

“The phrase “God has shown it to them,” is an aorist tense, denoting that God has already given man all that he needs to know the truth, but men have continually suppressed this truth in each generation. The prepositional phrase “to them” is literally “in them,” which means that man’s inner being is where this knowledge resides.”

Robert says Romans 1 teaches that people need evidence and already have it: they know from the things that are made that God has to exist.

“Presupposing that the man knows God exists, they're wrong in presupposing that he needs no evidence. And it's uncanny to me that they can't see this in the very verse that they're using as proof for their presuppositional apologetics, because what does the verse say? It says they know God exists by the things that are made, not just by some intuition of the heart, you know, or some infusion of knowledge. They see the stars, the sun, the moon, the plants, the trees, the animals, and they know from that evidence that God has to exist.”

Calls God's existence obvious and says people deny it because of their sins.

“Because it's so darn obvious that God exists. And the real reason people will deny God exists is because of their sins. You see, because God made us in His image. And that means if we sin, we do evil, we're going to feel guilty.”

Robert cites the fine-tuning of the universe as strongly implying an intelligent Creator.

“The most basic problem for the secular scientist is that he sees the universe is so minutely fine-tuned that it would be impossible to have life without it. This fine-tuning strongly implies there must have been an intelligent Creator to figure it all out and put it into existence.”

Says no one is guaranteed protection from accidents now, because the earth has been cursed since Adam's sin.

“The only way you get God's protection now is by mountains of prayer, if God's going to answer them. Okay? There's no guarantee that He's going to answer them. There's no guarantee if you get yourself in trouble in an auto accident, you know? I mean, there's no guarantee that God's going to stop the auto accident. Okay? Why? Because this earth is cursed, we are not guaranteed the same protection 24/7 that Adam would have had before he sinned. We just don't have it.”

Robert says God controls every atom of the universe, but that we do not know whether He is behind any particular catastrophe.

“Whether God is behind one disaster or another, we don't know, okay? We know that God controls every atom and molecule of the universe, because without Him it wouldn't exist. We know that in the general sense, but whether God is casting a cataclysm or a catastrophe on one place or the other, we don't know that.”

Holds that the whole world was cursed when Adam sinned, is now abnormal, and will be recreated without the curse.

“Judged. Even the creation itself is judged. It is cursed. That's why Paul says in Romans 8, for example, that the curse is on the whole world. He says the creation itself groans in pain. Now, that's of course a metaphor, but groans for the Redemption of the world, of the universe, okay? Why? Well, because when Adam sinned the whole world was cursed. It's not normal, it's abnormal, and God's going to recreate it, new Heaven and new earth, to make it normal so there is no curse upon it.”

Robert says the question of who made us leads to whether we can live apart from Him, and answers no.

“We, as limited finite beings, are going to have that question, "Where did I come from? Who made me?" And then the next, of course, is, "Am I responsible to Him? Do I just live my life as a conscious being and yet I'm apart from Him?" Okay? Well, the answer to that question is no.”

Argues the Creator would have no reason to create us unless He wanted a relationship with us, which ties the Creator to a personal God.

“The super consciousness would have no reason to create you if He didn't want to have a relationship with you. It would be superfluous for Him to do that.”

Robert describes the Greek idols as having no life and no metaphysical reality.

“unlike the stone idols of the Greeks that have facial appearance but no life, no metaphysical reality, and are thus ματαίων (“vain things”)”

Cites Irenaeus against Marcion's split between a judging Old Testament God and a good God: a God without both justice and goodness is no God.

“Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all”

Robert grants that, since there is logically only one God, Muslims worship the same God in that sense, but objects to saying so without qualification, because Christians define God as a Trinity.

“It didn't give you the reason I just gave, where, you know, obviously, logically, there's only one God, so in that sense we have to say that the Muslims worship the same God. It doesn't even give you that rationale. He just says, "The Muslims worship the same God as the Christians." Period. Without any explanation of the Trinity, of how we define our God, and in that sense it's not the same God as the Muslims.”

Says Islam denies the Trinity and that Allah is not a personal God like the Christian Father.

“The biggest would be the fact that they don't believe in the Trinity, okay? They believe Allah is the prophet of God. I'm sorry, Muhammad is the prophet of God; Allah is the God. But there's no Trinity. There's no Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and that means that there's no sacrifice that's given to God for the sins of man. So their whole, see, soteriology is non-existent, okay? Allah is not a personal God like the God of Christianity. That's why we call Him Father.”

Robert compares the question to the loaded question 'have you stopped beating your wife' and says it must be treated gingerly.

“Can they believe in the same God that we believe in? Well, this is one of those questions that you have to treat gingerly, okay, because it's very similar to a question like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I think I've mentioned this on this program before, okay? "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Well, if you answer yes, of course that means you've been beating your wife. If you answer no, that means you're still beating her. So you're caught whatever way you answered the question.”

Answering the charge that he fills gaps in scientific knowledge with the Bible, Robert says science is finite and fallible but that he has never used that fact to argue geocentrism could be true.

“Although it is true that science (and for that matter, any science, including metaphysics, philosophy, etc.) cannot really boast about anything it does or concludes for the simple fact that its field of vision is finite and its interpretive capabilities are fallible and often biased, 349 I have never used that fact to form an argument saying, “well, then, geocentrism could possibly be true.” I would be an idiot if I said so;”

Disputes that Protestants rely on a God of the gaps, pointing to their acceptance of Aquinas's five philosophical proofs for God.

“R. Sungenis: Although it is true some Protestants have little use for philosophical arguments, this is not true of all of them. I don’t know too many Protestants, for example, who dismiss Thomas Aquinas’ five philosophical proofs for the existence of God, but who do reject the Nominalism of the same period for its philosophical inadequacies.”

Robert says a God who had to work miracles every two seconds to keep creation stable would not show His glory.

“If God had to do miraculous works every 2 seconds, as it were, in order to keep the creation stable, well, that wouldn't be very good for God, would it? That wouldn't show the glory of God.”

Argues that a Catholic critic who invokes divine intervention for the appearance of life is using a God of the gaps himself.

“Since Fr. Robinson’s Big Bang universe over billions of years cannot, by his own admission, produce biological life, he must account for plant and animal appearances by “God’s intervention” at some time in the latter portion of the billions of years. If this is not the same thing as the “God of the gaps” theory, what is?”

Robert defines a miracle as the setting aside of natural laws that God put in place.

“A miracle, okay, is not a lie. A miracle says up front that it is avoiding the natural laws that God put in place for everything else, or for most of the creation.”

Says that when Jesus walked on water, a greater, supernatural power set aside the law of gravity.

“Supernatural is a greater power that can set aside a lower power or a lower law, and that's what Jesus did when He walked on water. He... the laws of gravity.”

Robert names the assumption, following Hume, that miracles did not occur and everything has a natural explanation as the premise of Strauss's criticism of Jesus' miracles.

“Strauss convinced his students that historical criticism was necessary in order to find out the “real” story behind Jesus’ miracles, since they must take as a “given” that miracles, following the philosophy of David Hume (1711-1776) and the Enlightenment, simply did not occur, and that everything in life has a “natural” explanation.”

Holds that the Gospel demon was real, not epilepsy or insanity, because it spoke through the man.

“The demon is real, not a physical malady (e.g., epilepsy, insanity) for it speaks through the man’s vocal cords. Although Jesus’ divinity is hidden by his human form, here, as in other places, demons can recognize Jesus in his divinity”

Robert says natural secondary causes already operated during the six days of creation, such as water seeking a lower level and birds flying by aerodynamics.

“The special creationist (i.e., those who believe that God created separate things, ex nihilo, on all six days of creation) can agree partially, but not totally. Secondary causes certainly existed in the six days of creation. When water was created it assumed the shape of its container and it sought a lower point than land; or once birds were created, they flew by the Bernouli principle of aerodynamics.”

Uses the example of stopping a spinning top to argue that intervening in nature depends on its laws and does not reject them.

“If, by analogy, I spin a top, but after it spins for a while I intervene by putting my hand on it to cease its motion, have I rejected any of the laws of nature? Certainly not. In fact, I am using the laws of nature, since if a sufficient force is applied to a spinning object, the object will stop its motion and transfer its kinetic energy to heat energy, thus warming my hand at little. If anything, I am depending on the laws of nature, not rejecting or reinventing them.”

Robert says science has almost no proof, even for its simplest postulates, so its theories are replaced every 50 to 100 years.

“Science barely has proof for its most simple postulates, let alone proof of the esoteric world of cosmology and the inner workings of the atom. Most scientists admit this problem. They have evidence, hunches, suspicions, statistics, guesses, estimates, hypotheses, but virtually no proof. That is why scientific theories change about every 50100 years or so, since new theories continually replace the old theories. As Max Born once said: “Science progresses funeral by funeral.””

Says science keeps overturning its theories while its verifiable findings vindicate the Genesis account.

“there is one thing about science common to all its branches (including philosophy, psychology, medicine, chemistry, biology, etc.), that is, its history shows that it cannot cease from overturning its own theories, whereas the Bible’s “science” always remains the same. In actuality, what little verifiable truth is discovered in science, the more the Genesis account is vindicated as being a precise record of what occurred in the past.”

Robert says the science shows dinosaur and human fossils found together, and that scientists with an agenda hold such evidence back.

“If you listen to the science, the science tells you that dinosaur and human fossils have been found together. That's what the science tells us. The scientists are the ones that try to cover that up, okay? So there's a big difference between scientists and the science. What is the science? Okay, well, we're being held back from a lot of the science by scientists who have an agenda, and that is not to let the Bible be confirmed by any kind of outside source.”

Robert calls Baronius's saying false and says no one in Catholic Scripture study before him had limited the domain of Scripture that way.

“More to the point, however, is that Baronius’ statement is false. No one in the whole history of Catholic Scripture study up to that point had ever uttered such a denial on the domain of either the Holy Spirit’s teaching or the content of Holy Writ.”

Argues that the Fathers' unanimous belief and the papally sanctioned verdicts against Galileo show the Church held that Scripture teaches how the heavens go.

“If the Bible does not concern itself with “how the heavens go” then why did the Fathers of the Church, in unanimous consent, believe it to be so, and why did Cardinal Bellarmine and his fellow cardinals, with the popes afterwards who for decades sanctioned their verdicts against Galileo, ever dare say that, because it was spoken by the Holy Spirit, a motionless Earth and a moving sun were “a matter of faith”?”

Robert holds that Scripture recognizes no separate category of 'scientific issues' and can decide such questions.

“On the larger point of whether Scripture can speak authoritatively on what we categorize as “scientific issues,” first, we must keep in mind that Scripture does not testify to any such separate intellectual categories and thus does not grade the truth of its statements depending on the category it is addressing. The category of “scientific issues” is imposed on Scripture but Scripture recognizes no such distinction. Second, although Scripture certainly does not reach the academic level of a typical science textbook, that does not mean it cannot, or does not, address and decide on what we understand as a “scientific issue” on various occasions.”

Says a Catholic who trusts uncertain modern science over the face-value meaning of Scripture is not the rational one.

“Any man who would place his complete trust in such an uncertain and contradictory science is the very one who is not rational. That Fr. Robinson is willing to throw out almost two-thousand years of Spirit-led belief in the face value meaning of Scripture for the mess of conflicting pottage that modern science has given him, simply cannot be a “rational” Catholic.”

Robert says schools should offer both creation and evolution and let students decide, and objects that Catholic schools teach only evolution.

“You might think that, considering their tradition of creationism in the Catholic Church, that they might be gentlemanly enough to offer both to their grade school, high school, college students, you know: "Okay, here's some creationist stuff, and by the way, we have a whole new creation science here we didn't have before that we could study, or evolution, you know. We'll study both, and students can decide which one you think is better." Do they do that? No, no, it is a total onslaught of evolutionary theory, Copernicanism, relativism, you name it, that's been accepted into Catholic schools today.”

Asks that students hear six-day creationism as the other side, alongside theistic evolution or Darwin.

“It wouldn't be bad if they had, you know, their ideas of theistic evolution or Darwin or whoever, if they would just tell the students the other side of the story and say, "Look, there's a whole other view out there that's opposed to what we have made the prominent view, and that is six day creationism, just like Genesis says."”

Robert says those who accepted Scripture at face value began to delve more deeply into the sciences and found the facts supported a non-evolutionary origin.

“It was at this time that those who accepted Scripture both as divine revelation and at face value, began to delve more deeply into the sciences than ever before. They began to see that a proper interpretation of scientific facts did not preclude a non-evolutionary origin for the Earth or a non-uniformitarian development of its terrain, but actually supported it much better than the opposing evolutionary views. There has been so much information made available that we are beginning to see universities and secondary schools take a second look at these issues.”

Robert's Genesis commentary says the ark could hold about 15,000 animals, with dinosaurs housed in their infant stages.

“Regarding the feasibility of housing and caring for the animals, the ark itself could easily hold about 15,000 or so animals, especially since the large majority of the animals were rather small. Larger animals, such as dinosaurs, elephants, etc., would be housed in their infant stages.”

States that dinosaurs lived among men before Noah went into the ark.

“And so it could be anything, but, you know, we believe that there were dinosaurs among men before Noah went to the ark.”

Robert says human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur footprints and that he has seen the specimens himself.

“Yes, they have found human footprints right alongside a dinosaur footprint, okay? That is a fact. Now, you won't have your secular archaeologist or paleontologist to admit to that, but they are there, and I've seen the specimens myself, okay? So I know they exist.”

Argues that dinosaur remains with tissue and blood vessels cannot be as old as the 70 million years paleontology assigns them.

“Paleontology understands that all such remnants of dinosaurs are no younger than 70 million years old. But since dinosaurs with tissue and blood vessels cannot possibly be so old, Mary was told by her boss, Jack Horner, the curator of paleontology and one of the world’s foremost dinosaur authorities, not to let it be known.”

Robert holds that fine-tuning strongly implies an intelligent Creator.

“The most basic problem for the secular scientist is that he sees the universe is so minutely fine-tuned that it would be impossible to have life without it. This fine-tuning strongly implies there must have been an intelligent Creator to figure it all out and put it into existence.”

Says cosmologists keep promoting the multiverse, which lacks hard scientific evidence, because the alternative is a special Earth.

“Despite the fact that there is no hard scientific evidence for the Multiverse, cosmologists such as Carr, Lightman and the rest keep promoting it because the alternative is a special Earth with a special place in one universe”

Robert calls the reply 'we would not be here otherwise' question-begging and says it does not answer the design argument.

“If he says that we don't need intelligent design because, if not, then we wouldn't be here, is his argument. Well, again, here he has to use his intelligence to make that stupid argument. It's stupid, but he still has to use his intelligence, what little that he has, to come up with that excuse, okay? Well, of course, if there was no design we wouldn't be here. We already know that, okay? So it just begs the question that because we're already here, obviously it couldn't be otherwise, because we're here. But that's an argument from silence. It doesn't really answer the argument.”

Says the idea of the appendix as a useless leftover of ape anatomy proved false.

“After they thought the appendix was just a vestigial part of the ape anatomy that somehow survived in the humans, and then it became useless in humans, you see. So, and that's all part of natural selection, you see that. But, you know, we found out that that was false.”

Robert says the mutations natural selection needs are almost always harmful and have not been shown to produce upward change.

“with the knowledge that 99% of mutations are harmful and thus would impede evolution into higher forms. The task for Miller, of course, is to show convincing evidence that mutations provide beneficial changes; changes that result in an upward progression of the species; changes that can form the genes in the DNA so that the next specimen in line can pass it on to their offspring. Has Miller found any evidence of these changes coming from mutations? No, none at all. In virtually every mutation, whether from natural or artificial means, it results in the deterioration or death of the biological specimen or an abnormality that is simply not useful.”

Says leading evolutionists admitted the fossil record shows no convincing transitions and devised punctuated equilibria in response.

“In a meeting of the world’s top evolutionists in Chicago in 1970, Gould and Eldredge admitted that they could play the charade of gradualism no longer, since the near-complete unearthing of fossils revealed only pitiful and highly suspect specimens of transition. Thus “punctuated equilibria” was born to be the savior of a dying theory.”

Robert says every claimed missing link was faked or forced, and that museum models present transitional fossils as if they existed.

“In fact, every “missing-link” purported by evolutionists has been found to be either faked or forced. Coupling these facts with the worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by today’s museum curators who create models of transitional fossil as if they really existed”

Grants that evolution needs deep time but says the large age figures were adopted because chance-driven evolution requires them.

“Because we need way more than 4.5 billion. We need about 20 billion or 15 billion years, because we have to have this evolution take place, and since it's going by time and chance, we need to have this astronomical figure that's going to allow the chance factor to produce biological human beings like you and me.”

Robert notes that the command to love one's neighbor was recorded as far back as Leviticus 19:18.

““Love your neighbor as yourself” is the focal point of this section. It is significant that James appeals to the “royal law found in Scripture” to reinforce his point. This law of love was recorded as far back as Leviticus 19:18. Things have not changed in that respect.”

Gives his principle for which Old Testament laws Christians keep: the Ten Commandments bind because the New Covenant incorporated them, and the New Covenant may adjust their practice.

“Catholic doctrine holds that we obey the Ten Commandments because they have been incorporated into the New Covenant, not because the Mosaic covenant is still in force or has some juridical hold on us. Moreover we use the Ten Commandments with the proviso that the New Covenant has the right to adjust the practice of those commandments to fit the theological and practical needs of the Church, such as switching the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday,”

Robert reads Deuteronomy 22:5, a verse Tyson cited, as requiring a distinction between the sexes, and does not treat it as discarded.

“"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this." Okay, so what it means there is that there has to be a distinction between the sexes.”

Robert says Bruno's heliocentrism and infinite universe came from beliefs about a living Earth and an infinite God, not from observation.

“He believed the Earth revolved around the sun not from any scientific observations but because he believed the Earth was alive, which, as an organism, it had local motion. Similarly, Bruno’s belief in an infinite universe was not based on any scientific observations or theories, but from his belief that since God is infinite the universe must also be infinite.”

Says Bruno was burned for about a dozen theological positions, on the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist, that he would not retract.

“Bruno was, you know, he was into all kinds of weird ideas about the Trinity, the Incarnation, even matter itself he was questioning. And that infringed upon the Eucharist. And so it was about a dozen things, theological things, that Bruno was contesting, and he would not bend. That's the other thing. And so he was burned at the stake.”

In this talk Robert says both Bruno's cosmology (aliens on other planets) and his theology led to his burning.

“Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he had some really crazy ideas about the, you know, the cosmos, like there aliens lived on other planets and things like that, okay? So, he was way out there. And he had some objections to, you know, the Eucharist and things like that. So, it was both science and theology that he had the problem with.”

Robert's book cites evidence that Bruno was never executed, noting the story rests on an alleged letter from Gaspard Schopp.

“Despite Yates’ belief, there is substantial evidence leading to the conclusion that Bruno was never executed, least of all by Catholic authorities. According to one source: “The whole story is based on an alleged letter from Gaspard Schopp to his friend Conrad Rittenshausen, dated in Rome, Feb. 17, 1600”

Robert attributes Copernicus's perfect circles to Greek and Platonic ideas about the perfect form, not to a belief about how God would design the universe.

“Because Copernicus had said that the planets revolved around the sun in perfect circles. And the reason he did that was, as Copernicus was for a very long time enamored by the Greeks. And the Greeks thought that the circle was the most perfect form. Okay? And if you know anything about Plato, everything was based on forms.”

Says Copernicus's model ended up with more epicycles than Ptolemy's, forty-eight to forty.

“One of the more obvious faults of De revolutionibus was for all its complaints against epicycles, in the end Copernicus produced more epicycles than Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s system has forty epicycles, whereas Copernicus ends up with forty-eight.”

Robert notes that the Church rejected Copernicus's book in the 1540s and put it on the Index in 1559.

“In light of its date, 1566, the Catechism comes as more or less the capstone to the Church’s position, since it had already rejected both Rheticus’ and Copernicus’ books on heliocentrism in the 1540s and put them both on the Index in 1559.”

Says Ptolemy's refined model won the centuries-long contest between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

“We might say that the centuries long battle between the heliocentric and geocentric models was finally won by the geocentrists when Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer from Alexandria, Egypt, introduced his very refined model.”

Robert rejects the picture of medieval Europe as dark, citing its inventions, authors and philosophy.

“If you really go in and examine the Middle Ages, you find some of the greatest treasures of human life in the Middle Ages, and the greatest inventions, some of the greatest authors, the greatest ideas philosophically, Thomas Aquinas leading the way, that you get a totally different picture of the Middle Ages than what the Protestants have tried to and what the Enlightenment tried to do. They say, "Well, it was the Dark Ages." You know, if there was ever a misnomer, once you know the historical facts, it's that they were anything but dark, believe me.”

Acknowledges that early Islamic astronomers built on Ptolemy's model to improve its accuracy.

“His model was so successful that Islamic astronomers created various versions to help improve his accuracy. As Kak notes: “The geometrical structure of the universe conceived by Muslim astronomers of the early Islamic period (ca. 800-1050) is more or less that expounded in Ptolemy’s Almagest”

Robert says the Church handed heretics over to be burned only rarely, in extreme cases, and calls doing so righteous.

“"We're going to turn you over to those who burn at the stake." That's all we, you know, that's it. That's our last measure for you. Okay, that could be done by the Church. They could call that, and righteously do so. Okay, now they didn't do it often. Not often at all. Only in the most extreme cases, and apparently his was.”

Robert credits the AD dating system to Dionysius, not to the Gregorian reform.

“After Dionysius’ painstaking work, all historians had accepted his dating system. In fact, those who wished to go further back into history before the birth of Christ would put their dates in negative figures. Likewise, those who dated an event after Christ would designate it as “Anno Domini” (that is, “the year of Our Lord”).”

Quotes Copernicus that an earlier Church attempt at calendar reform, under Leo X, stalled for lack of accurate measurements.

“Copernicus records this sequence of events in the Introduction to De revolutionibus: For not many years ago under Leo X when the Lateran Council was considering the question of reforming the Ecclesiastical Calendar, no decision was reached, for the sole reason that the magnitude of the year and the months and the movements of the sun and moon had not yet been measured with sufficient accuracy.”

Robert says Bellarmine told Galileo the Church would not change its position without proof, and that Galileo offered conjecture about the tides.

“Calling his bluff, Robert Bellarmine stated quite clearly to Galileo that the Church would not even consider changing its position on the cosmos unless Galileo could provide proof of his claims. In one of his more audacious moves, Galileo tried to prove his case by a strange concoction of theory and conjecture on the nature of tidal action.”

Says Galileo's tides and Jupiter's moons were data open to more than one reading, not proof.

“In the end, Olivieri is in the same place that Galileo was two hundred years earlier when Galileo was depending on the specious arguments of the Earth’s tides and Jupiter’s moons to win the day with Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII. He believed he had scientific proof when he only possessed data that can be interpreted more than one way.”

Robert describes Tycho Brahe collecting precise measurements to uncover errors in Copernicus's system.

“Modern telescopic observation reveals that, without ever using a telescope, Brahe’s data of stars was consistently accurate to within 1 minute of arc or better. His observations of planetary positions were reliable to within 4 minutes of arc, which was more than twice the accuracy produced by the best observers of antiquity. In fact, it was Tycho’s express desire to use his precise measurements to uncover the errors in Copernicus’ solar system.”

Says Galileo, Tycho and Kepler mostly worked in geometry, and that detailed experimental testing came after Newton.

“Because Galileo and Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, they all dealt with geometry basically, you know. But we're now in an age where, you know, after Newton, where we now can do experiments and test things, and in the most intricate ways that we never did before.”

Robert calls the 13.7 billion year age an assumption and says the same redshift formula gives 2,121 years if the universe is assumed to be 6,000 years old.

“Since using the number 13.7 billion years is completely arbitrary (for it is based on the unproven assumption of a Big Bang universe), let’s say we assume T0 is 6,000 years instead of 13.7 billion. In this case, where z = 1, then T = 2,121 years. In other words, when an astronomer sees a star with a z-factor of 1, he might just as well assume the universe was 2,121 years old rather than 13.7 billion years old, since the z-factor is only a function of one’s assumption regarding the beginning of the universe.”

Says dark energy was invented so the universe could be 13.7 billion years old and older than its stars.

“he simply invents the energy he needs. This time it is called Dark Energy, but he can’t see, hear, feel, taste or smell it. And how much does he need? According to the equations, about 73% of the universe must be composed of Dark Energy to make the Big Bang conform to 1a supernovae requirements. This invention then allows the universe to be 13.7 billion years old (so that it is older than the stars)”

Robert says that, on the vacuum energy figures he cites, the Big Bang does not work under present evidence.

“the whole universe should presently be curled up into a space smaller than the dot on this i. Obviously it isn’t. As we can see, the Big Bang universe simply does not work under present empirical evidence.”

Calls Hoyle's steady state an equally weak view, so Robert sides with neither Hoyle nor the Big Bang Tyson defends.

“Hoyle tenaciously held to an equally weak view called “The Steady State” theory, which holds that the universe is infinite yet comes into being little by little. Under Dicke’s direction, Penzias and Wilson claimed the CMB was the remnant of the Big Bang, whereas Reber made it known he was vehemently against the Big Bang all the way to his death in 2002, and his work was consequently ignored.”

Robert says Einstein's equations allow both the centerless balloon model and a centered spherical universe with a stationary Earth at the center.

“Pictured the universe as a balloon with no center. It eventually developed into the Big Bang Theory. Such a universe will appear the same from every direction, and thus it has no center or distinguishing point. Today this model generally goes by the name of the Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model. The second possible universe from Einstein's field equations was an inhomogeneous isotropic universe. This is a spherical universe with a center, thus allowing for a stationary Earth to occupy that center.”

Says astronomers choose a centerless universe to avoid the implications of an Earth at the center of everything.

“In reality, this is merely a feigned humility; an attempt to engender the sympathies of the human audience so that the astronomer can appear noble and selfdepreciating, and therefore more convincing; a way of making oneself appear gallant by choosing the less ingratiating option when in reality the choice is made simply in order to avoid the divine implications and harsh demands of an Earth in the center of everything.”

Robert cites alignments of distant radio galaxies and quasars with the Earth as a third axis placing the Earth at the center.

“It occurs because of how the very distant radio galaxies and quasars are aligned with the Earth. So now we have three axes that put the Earth in the center of the universe! The discoverer of this third axis, Indian astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal, concludes with these amazing words: It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle”

Says specially oriented structures have no Big Bang explanation but are what a geocentric universe would lead us to expect.

“As Max Tegmark said in The Principle: “The pendulum has begun to swing back the other way from the Copernican Principle.” So, the next question is, from where are these specially oriented lumps originating? As noted, the Big Bang has no answer. They simply shouldn’t be there. But in a geocentric universe, they are what we would expect.”

Robert denies the billions-of-years wait: since God's purpose was fellowship with man, He had no reason to precede him with a slow process.

“Genesis teaches us that God did not start things with a big explosion that, over billions of years, produced stars, and then out of one star we call the sun the earth was ejected, which then cooled over billions of years before it could support life. 36 Since God’s purpose in creation was to have fellowship with mankind whom He created in his own image, it would be pointless for God to wait an excessively long time before creating him. Not only would there be no purpose in preceding man with such an agonizingly slow and tedious process,”

Says the vast number of stars exists to hold the universe together for the Earth, and that God's focus is on mankind.

“Because we need to hold the universe together. That's why you need all those stars out there, spread out as they are, because their whole mass, gravity, is going to hold the universe together so that the earth can have this beautiful place called the universe. You need that many stars in order to make a universe, okay? So don't get me down: "Whoa, so many stars, though, there's so many possibilities out there of life." No, that's not why God created them. He created them because they're needed for the physics of the universe. That's it. God's attention, God's love, God's focus is on mankind.”

Robert says the teaching that one man's sin corrupted the whole universe shows the universe centers on humankind.

“This teaching, that because of one man the whole universe is corrupted, tells us that the whole thing is centered on humankind, no one else. There's no one else to save out there.”

Robert endorses the lunar eclipse image as decisive and says its cause was accepted for centuries, even by those who held a fixed Earth.

“If there was ever an instance when “a picture is worth a thousand words,” this was it. 41 The cause of a lunar eclipse has been known and accepted for centuries, even among those who believed that the Earth was fixed in space.”

Agrees that ships sink below the horizon and says magnification cannot bring back the hidden part, against the flat-earth claim that it can.

“Although it is true that magnification will bring back into view a portion of the ship that is not seen with the unaided eye, it cannot bring back into view all of the ship, specifically the part of the ship that has already sunk beneath the horizon.”

Robert says the Earth is more precisely spherical than a billiard ball, matching Tyson's own comparison.

“Although the Earth is slightly larger in its bottom half, the difference is miniscule. Pound for pound, billiard balls have less accuracy in spherical measurement than the Earth, since the polar circumference compared to the equatorial circumference is only 0.0036 different or 0.36% smaller.”