As noted in part 1 of this article, distant starlight has been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young earth. A serious charge. So I thought it would be helpful to identify the best answer to this “best” charge against creation. A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by scientists who happen to also be creationists. We briefly examined the popular ones in the previous article. Now that we’ve completed an overview of possible solutions, we’ll get to the meat of the matter: identifying which theory or theories both have a possibility of working, and surviving the principle of Occam’s razor. So without further ado: Continue Reading
Before we get to the meat of the matter, I’m sure some are wondering “Where is Part 1?” Sometimes a better name for an article occurs to you after you’ve already published it. Such is the case with the previous article, which should have been titled something like:
And while in this digital age of online publishing though it is possible to change the title, it still seems a bit unseemly, so I have left it with the original title. But for those who are wondering where Part 1 is, that’s where it is, titled with a question meant to get you thinking about one of the main reasons why atheists can’t find evidence of God (and why evolutions can’t find evidence of intelligent design.)
Part 1 lays out two reasons why atheists can’t find either evidence of God or Intelligent design; and in similar fashion why evolutionists can’t find evidence of Creation. Those reasons are: Continue Reading
Editor’s note: This is in response to Tom Gilson’s article “Young Earth or Old? The Debate That Divides Christians — But Shouldn’t“ Normally I wouldn’t bother posting a comment on an article I’ve read to this site, but I’m making an exception here because 1. This is a topic I’ve written on a number of times on this site, so it’s fitting here and 2. For some reason my comment remains marked as “spam” and thus is not visible under Tom’s article, though I’ve indicated it’s not spam. And rather that speculate why it remains unpublished as of this writing I offer it to you here in its entirety, with a few added notes for clarification.
Tom, you’re usually right on the mark, but here you’re advocating a very dangerous position. You’re basically advocating “leave it to the experts.” You’re stating this issue is so complex it requires “a high level of expertise in multiple fields, including biblical Hebrew, Ancient Near East literature and culture, and four or five major branches of science.” Continue Reading
In parts 1 and 2, we saw how misunderstandings of ancient texts led to commonly held, but incorrect views. Part one demonstrated why the early date of the exodus – 1446 BC – is the correct date. Part two demonstrated that commonly held Egyptian chronology is off and identified the amount of the error at the point of the exodus by identifying the pharaoh of the Exodus. (Hint: it’s not Rameses or any of the other commonly suggested pharaohs.) Here in part three we see a more egregious error: An outright denial of Biblical truth. Whereas in parts one and two those who came to the wrong conclusions likely did so honestly – by simply misunderstanding the text. But there can be no mistake here: it is clear the error here can only be arrived at by an outright denial of the biblical text – and its related teachings – at many levels. Let me give you an illustration of why this must be the case. Continue Reading
Since the limited run of Genesis: Paradise Lost is almost over (there’s a final encore on December 11, 2017), you may be wondering why another review. We’ll get to that in a moment. But first let me note that a number of even handed reviews have already been written. Here are 3 of them: Continue Reading
Today we will apply the advice of apologist Sean McDowell. McDowell, son of “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” apologist Josh McDowell and an author and college professor in his own right, suggests:
#Apologetics Tip of the Day: Arguments must be presented in a way that is faithful to Christ. Both the medium and the message matter.
— Sean McDowell (@Sean_McDowell)
November 8, 2017
With his PhD and years of experience, starting no doubt as a child at the foot of his apologist father, many Christians turn to McDowell for advice on witnessing. And what he provides above is solid advice. So here’s the question: is using the Big Bang as a witnessing tool to back up the Biblical account being faithful to Christ? Let me answer as Jesus often did: with a question. Would you use the details of the back story of Superman to support the miraculous powers of Jesus? Such a story (a work of fiction I would remind you) might go something like this: Continue Reading
Are you ashamed to be called a “creationist”? If you’re taking cues from certain Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, you might feel like the label “creationist” is a label to avoid at all costs. Here’s why that’s both the wrong approach and dishonoring to God. Continue Reading
Google “Nashville Statement” (or Bing, or DuckDuckGo – whatever your search engine of choice is). After a listing for the site, (sometimes even before it) among the first entries you’ll find are a number of articles very critical of the statement – some complete with name calling. Produced by the CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) on biblical sexuality, the document called the Nashville Statement was released in 2017 and is a follow up to the 1987 Danvers statement on male and female distinctions, roles, and inherent equality before God. But in this age of gender confusion and so called gay “marriage” being legalized in country after country – a statement on Biblical gender identity was clearly needed. Continue Reading
On January 19, 2006 the “fastest spacecraft ever launched” – the New Horizons space probe – lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida on a mission to Pluto. In February of 2007 it collected data from Jupiter as it flew by for a gravity assist catapult as it continued on to Pluto. On July 14th, 2015, New Horizons made its closest approach to Pluto. Scientists have now had an opportunity to review the initial data and pictures from New Horizons about the dwarf planet Pluto, and many have been forced into a stunning but unavoidable admission: they’ve been wrong about Pluto for a long time.
What they found on Pluto was not at all what they were expecting to find. Scientists were expecting to find it heavily cratered, “a flat, dead world similar to our moon.” Instead, what they actually found was:
- Icy Volcanoes
- The heart shaped area (right side partially faded) visible in the picture above named sputnik planum, of which scientists note “…this Texas sized basin of ice appears to be boiling.”  Planetary scientist Jani Radebaugh likens it to “a lava lake in slow motion” made of nearly frozen Nitrogen cooled until the texture is that of tooth paste.
- Other areas feature a young looking surface, with no record of crater bombardment as expected. “These features are very, very young…Pluto is active today. That’s the headline.” says Planetary scientist Dan Durda.
- An active geology driven by heat
- and “there’s pretty good circumstantial evidence that Pluto has a massive ocean in its interior” says New Horizons mission principle investigator Alan Stern.
While scientists are willing to fess up to being wrong when confronted with objective data like that supplied to them from their own instruments aboard the New Horizons space probe, it is unlikely that they are willing to acknowledge error with regard to the below lessons, save the first, which they cannot deny without being accused of being science deniers. Continue Reading
What casts no shadows besides vampires? Apparently, the big bang.
In theory, scientists are objective seekers of the truth, handling the data that is discovered with honesty and integrity. Unfortunately particularly in sciences that have worldview implications, that is not the case. One of those sciences is cosmology – the science that attempts to determine the origin and development of the universe. With the possible exception of Darwinian evolution, there are no sciences that have larger worldview implications that cosmology. Even without knowing how the origin of the universe came about, the psalmist is correct in his declaration “the heavens declare the glory of God.” (Ps 19.1) Atheist cosmologists know that and have tried to mute that testimony by attempting to come up with a story of the creation of the universe that doesn’t involve God. Because even if you haven’t formally studied apologetics or cosmology, everyone implicitly understands the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God: Everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a creator. The only one powerful enough to create the universe is of course God, therefore God created the universe.
Such a simple, intuitive, easy to understand proof of the existence of God is anathema to atheist cosmologists because their own preferred theory of origins – the Big Bang theory – though incorrect nevertheless points to the fact that the universe had a beginning. Continue Reading