Don’t laugh, but dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists believe that therapod dinosaurs like T-Rex evolved into birds. In fact they don’t stop there. They also believe that dinosaurs didn’t really go extinct. They’ll tell you when you’re looking at birds, you’re looking at dinosaurs. “We don’t have to talk about how dinosaurs went extinct anymore because they’re all around us. Once you realize that, you can never look at a bird the same way again” says ornithologist and evolutionary biologist Rick Prum. A recent article on the topic of dino to bird evolution states in the subtitle “Birds aren’t descended from dinosaurs, They are dinosaurs.” So yes, they really believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. Continue Reading
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
We’ve been looking at why Darwinian Evolution and its updated version neo-Darwinism are impossible. In part 1 I defined the terms so I won’t bother to do so here. Parts 1 and 2 cover the first 10 of the 15 reasons evolution is impossible as promised in the title. Without further ado, let’s get right to the last set of reasons.
15 Reasons why Evolution is impossible and never happened (Part 3)
The Digital Problem
11. The Digital Nature of Information in living creatures
Digital information – which by nature is coded information – is fully integrated within all living creatures. Let me point out a few examples: Continue Reading
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
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, 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?
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