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: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe. 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.
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
What happens when you mix a lie with the truth? Do you wind up with a true statement, or a false statement? That’s easy. You get a false statement. For example:
The ark was a huge boat that was 450 feet long. (True – Gen 6:15)
The ark could fly. (False)
The ark was a huge boat that was 450 feet long that could fly. (False)
The final statement is clearly false. Unequivocally false. Either the entire statement is true, or it is false. This mixing of the truth with lies is a favorite tactic of Satan. He used it way back in the garden of Eden on Eve:
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.
“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Notice his mixing of truths and lies: Continue Reading
If you’re reading this, you likely have an interest in either finding evidence for the Christian faith, or presenting evidence to defend your faith. The endeavor to defend the faith is known as apologetics. When doing apologetics we often have a focus on presenting evidence or reasons to believe in the Christian faith. That is why you see apologetics ministries with names like Reasonable Faith or Reasons to Believe and even my own Rational Faith. In this age dominated by Science and scientism many have identified the need to defend Christianity against pervasive claims that modern minds cannot believe in the ancient claims of Christianity because many of those claims appear unscientific or outright impossible and are therefore unbelievable. After all how can the modern mind believe in a 7 day creation and a 6000 year old universe; and an original Adam and Eve when the modern scientific community is telling you the universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and humans were not created, they evolved?
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 part one, on the way to determining how far off standard Egyptian Chronology is, I pointed out 3 ways scientists and non-believers use time or Chronology to cast doubts on biblical time frames:
1. Scientist think the Biblical account is too young (e.g. age of the earth/universe) 2. Scientist can’t find evidence of the event in the time period they think it happened (e.g. The Exodus) or 3. Scientists believe they have found evidence that disproves the Biblical time line (e.g. Biblical artifacts like the Dendera Zodiak (below) or the Egyptian pyramids (above). 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
Is radiometric dating accurate? It’s science and many believe “science” to be synonymous with “always true” and therefore don’t question the data given, even when it contradicts the Bible – which also claims to be always true in information that it affirms. So when the two contradict – as they do with the age of the universe and the earth – many abandon the faith and reject the Genesis account because current science tells them that the universe and the earth is billions of years old, and disregard the biblical account – which indicates an age of about 6,000 years. The evidence many find persuasive: radiometric dating. But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be? By “objective, hard science” I mean science that is measurable, repeatable, predictable, consistent and accurate. For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Continue Reading
William Dembski is a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) community, so I read with initial interest a recent interview he did with Sean McDowell titled How is the Intelligent Design Movement Doing? Interview with William Dembski. which is posted on McDowell’s blog. That initial interest turned to dismay as the adversarial attitude Dembski has toward revealed truth in general and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) in particular was made apparent. When asked how he assesses the reception of ID within the church, Dembski states:
“I would say that the church broadly and even the evangelical community has — on balance — been somewhere between useless and downright counterproductive to the success of ID.”
A most unfortunate assessment given the potential ID has to impact a culture that has largely fallen under the sway of the junk science put forth to support the materialist religion known as Darwinian Evolution. Even more unfortunate is Dembski’s apparent blindness to how he (and other ID advocates with similar positions) has caused such a reaction from the God fearing, Bible believing faithful they’d like to gain support from. To unravel this mystery for them, let’s start with what both ID advocates and YEC advocates are trying to achieve. Continue Reading