Category Archives: Age of the Universe

Concerning the age of the universe – Biblical creationists claim the universe is about 6,000 years old. Big Bang believers, claim the universe is 13.75 billion years old.

Creation and Inerrancy: Evaluating the Mortenson vs Ross Debate

Posted on by — 4 Comments ↓
Wolf in Sheep's clothing in lab coat with bible surrounded by sheep.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Mat 7:15)

There was a recent[1] debate on creation and inerrancy which addressed the question: “Does belief in inerrancy necessitate a particular view of the age of the earth?”[2] In contrast to U.S. political debates this election cycle where moderators prop up one candidate and challenge the other one, this debate was moderated fairly by apologist Frank Turek who holds to the old earth position[3], though you couldn’t detect it from the way he moderated. Debater Terry Mortenson holds to the young earth position, as do I, and the other debater, Hugh Ross, holds to the old earth position. Continue Reading

Were The Pyramids Built Before the Flood? Correcting The Record

Posted on by

Correcting the Record - Were teh Pyramids built Before the Flood

From the title of the video, “Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood”[1] by Nathan Hoffman, you might suppose this video was going to focus on the dating issues around which came first, the pyramids or the global flood? If you thought so, you, like me, would be wrong. Next, you might think it was on issues concerning biblical dating, with his suggestion that the earth is older than the 6,000 years that biblical creationists claim it is. If so, you, like me, would be mostly wrong again. While his issue concerns dating, that is not really the focus nor his main issue. As Dr. Watson is a foil to show how smart and clever Sherlock Holmes is, these issues are merely foils to lead into his main issue. The main issue that Hoffman has – which he focuses on in both this pyramid video and his previous video “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt”[2] – is with the text from which today’s Bibles translate the Old Testament. The Old Testament in today’s Bibles is translated from what is considered the most reliable text by bible scholars, the Masoretic Text (MT). But Hoffman has an issue with it, an issue bordering on an unhealthy antipathy, it appears. Think I exaggerate? Hoffman says of the MT: “All of our Bibles were copied from this corrupted version of the Hebrew.”(29:08)  Corrupted? It is known there are scribal errors in all versions of hand copied ancient scriptures. But scholars, who respect the text, typically don’t call the texts “corrupted” and, in fact, work to identify such errors to get back to what the original text – which we no longer have – said.

Pyramids or Flood First?

I wrote this critique of his video not because of the question in the title. In viewing, it  quickly becomes clear the age of the pyramids is not the main concern for Hoffman because he starts the video by refuting the theory that the pyramids were built before the flood in the first minute of the video when he points out: Continue Reading

Correcting “The Origins of Young Earth Creation” Video

Posted on by

Old Earth Bias; Young Earth Fact

Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy has put out a cleverly deceptive video ostensibly on, as the title puts it “The Origins of Young Earth Creationism.” In actuality, it’s a hit piece designed to undermine both young earth beliefs and Young Earth Creation (YEC) as a movement in general. Continue Reading

A Dinosaur by any other name …

Posted on by

A Therapod dinosaur, AIG's Creation Museum, KY

The title is of course a play on the line from Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet laments the fact that her new found love Romeo is from the family of Montague. The two families, the Montagues and Juliet’s family, the Capulets, have been feuding for some time, which sometimes erupted into dueling. The animosity between the two families sets the background for the play. Juliet expresses her dismay with the famous discourse that begins with “O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?” and includes the lines:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Juliet’s well put and clear meaning being that Romeo would still be Romeo if he were called by any other name. Which is where we pick it up concerning dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs by Any Other Name are Still Dinosaurs

I originally wanted to call this article “Dragons are Dinosaurs.” But dinosaurs are also called by other names and perhaps just as importantly the term “Dinosaur” is limited to land-dwelling creatures, but I want to cover flying and swimming creatures as well. Continue Reading

Distant Starlight Unlikely Solutions Part 2: ASC – Questions for Dr Lisle

Posted on by

Demonstration of how to test Lisle's ASC theory

At the conclusion of my first two-part series (part 1, part 2) on distant starlight, it seemed clear to me that I should revisit this topic. I want to address specifically the issues with Lisle’s ASC theory. I initially thought it provided the best solution to the distant starlight problem. But after much study on the matter I came to the conclusion that not only does Lisle’s theory fall to Occam’s razor, if a key required stipulation is not true concerning light, it doesn’t even qualify to explain a 6,000 year old creation. I was thus forced to conclude Danny Faulkner’s Dasha theory (essentially God did it somehow – we don’t know how) is the best answer. But I wanted to return to Lisle’s ASC and look more closely at what I consider the failings of the theory that I thought when I started the previous series would be the preferred solution to the distant starlight problem. Continue Reading

Distant Starlight Unlikely Solutions Part 1: Light In Transit

Posted on by

Distant starlight – how stars millions or billions of light years away can be visible in a 6,000 year old creation – is perhaps the most difficult question that young earth creationists must deal with. All other questions seem like child’s play in comparison. To address the issue I did a two part series on distant starlight called Distant Starlight: Under Occam’s Razor: Part 1 Contenders, and Part 2 – Critique and Cuts. In part 1, I looked at the various theories, and in part 2, I evaluated the theories and selected the one which I consider likely to be the correct answer, given what we currently know.

My evaluation consisted of: 1. eliminating those that appear impossible based on scientific critiques. And 2: using Occam’s razor, (the simplest answer that doesn’t introduce unnecessary complicating factors is likely the correct answer) to narrow down any remaining theories. It was a lengthy evaluation process that I won’t repeat here. (If you’d like a short cut to my view of the best current theory, see here.) One of the theories I eliminated (judging it to be unlikely) is the light created in transit scenario. I recently received the following two questions on that theory: Continue Reading

Creation, Craig and the myth of a “mytho-historical” Genesis

Posted on by

My seminary apologetics teacher Dr. William Lane Craig has a quite serious problem on his hands.  He’s painted himself into a corner.  Dr. Craig has built a career and made and name for himself in apologetics and is well respected in the field. He now faces a problem that could undo all the good work he has done in defending the faith. What problem could possibly be so severe you wonder? Like the man cutting off the branch he’s sitting on, Craig is heading in the direction of undermining most if not all the work he has done in defending the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He appears ready to embrace the creation account as “mytho-historical.” Continue Reading

Are young earth evidences needed to defend Christian Faith?

Posted on by

10 Young earth evidences and why they’re needed 

Does the age of the earth matter to your faith? The witnessing approach known as Evangelism Explosion was known for its diagnostic questions[1], so let me take that approach and ask a few diagnostic questions. Answer yes or no to the following:

Question 1: Does the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis depict literal events in a historical manner the way the gospels present the life of Jesus in a historical manner?

Question 2: Is it important to stand up for a “literal” understanding of the creation of the universe as depicted in Genesis the way we stand up for a “literal” understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus?

Question 3:  Are you as proud and willing to stand for and defend the doctrine of creation  as depicted in Genesis – in 6 days – as you are to stand for and defend the resurrection of Jesus on the third day?

Continue Reading

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 2: Critique and Cuts

Posted on by

Supernova SN1987a

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

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 1: Contenders

Posted on by

The Milkyway from the International Space Station

Distant starlight: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe.[1] Why is that? Because Big Bang Theorists, secularists and anyone who believes in an ancient universe believe they have an iron clad case against a young universe with regard to distant starlight. The argument goes like this.

The Problem

We can see stars hundreds of thousands, millions even billions of light years away.  Take the Andromeda galaxy – 2.5 million light years away. A supernova was observed in that galaxy. That implies the light took 2.5 million years to get to earth. But if the earth (and indeed the entire universe) is only 6,000 years old. How can we see Andromeda or the supernova? Using standard understandings and formulas, there hasn’t been enough time for the light to get here from Andromeda. Yet we can see it. On the face of it that suggests that the earth is at least 2.5 million years old – much older than the 6,000 years that Biblical creationists claim for the universe. And the problem only gets worse for more distant stars. This is indeed an acknowledged problem. Continue Reading