dictionary.com defines science as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”
Knowledge is true, justified, belief.
pseudoscience is anything that is claimed to be scientific, that in reality is not
The origins account from the Creator, that we sometimes call creation never claims to be knowledge that is obtained from the scientific method. Creation is a historical fact and because it makes no claims of scientific epiphany, it cannot be pseudoscience.
Dr. Lisle however makes a strong case that the Grand Theory of Evolution is indeed pseudoscience. It claims to be supported by the scientific method but changing of one kind of creature into another kind of creature has only ever been assumed…never observed or demonstrated.
Biblical creation is not a scientific fact, but is rather the historical fact that justifies our confidence in the scientific method. Science is predicated on biblical creation. Creation is therefore not pseudoscience, but is recorded history that rightly informs our evaluation of scientific evidence in the present. Conversely, evolution is rightly classified as pseudoscience since it is purported to be science and yet cannot be demonstrated by observations or experimentation in the present.
We can trust the Creator with what He has revealed about the past, and we can trust Him with our future. Praise Him!
Darwinism’s much-touted and largely doubted mountain of evidence feeds a valley of death–the cold, purposeless, meaningless death of natural selection makes life in the valley heartily attractive to the strong, and hardly attractive to the weak.
The great failure of Darwinists is not only their failing to produce any evidence to support their theory in its strong form (all life from non-life in ever increasing information-bearing specified complexity), but in their obstinate refusal to admit and own up to the fact that their force-fed ideas (that few people believe) have predictable consequences (that no one likes).
Ideas have consequences. If Darwinism is correct, and we truly are the result of unguided, chance mutations that made us more successful at killing off weaker beings, then we must live with the difficult task of trying to formulate any reason why we all should not simply continue nature’s task. Unguided purposeless processes produced our mind, but what is to produce our morals? If science has defined our facts, can’t science define our values? So far Darwinists have not been able to come up with any coherent ethic consistent with both the inherent human ethos and their heartless killing machine. Look it up, no one can do it. And no one ever will.
#ConsistencyMatters!
The argument (evolutionism) that has set itself up against the knowledge of God is impotent.
…also, if anyone has links to Roddy Bullock’s blog entries, please let me know.
UPDATE: I found a 2nd article by Roddy Bullock! Enjoy!
The idea for this post came from reading A Meaningful World by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, so I want to give them some credit for a wonderful book and for pointing out how amazing even the simple things of creation truly are.
Consider air. Following is a list of many amazing things about air that reveal the praiseworthiness of the Creator!
Earth’s atmosphere protects humanity from harmful radiation.
It’s transparent for vision.
It’s the right composition for controlled combustion. Too much oxygen and combustion is irrepressible. Too little oxygen and no fire is possible.
It’s the perfect ratio of elements for both respiration and photosynthesis. Also consider that God designed an amazing process to keep the ratio in balance. The respiration process has a by-product of CO2, which is needed for photosynthesis to take place. Conversely, the by-product of photosynthesis is O2, which is vital for creatures that respirate.
It’s not too dense to move freely.
It’s dense enough to provide lift for flight. Flight/lift is useful for birds, bats, insects, flying fish, flying squirrels, and humans. Trees and plants were designed to make use of lift to spread their seed and spores.
It’s also dense enough to provide thermal protection against extreme heat and cold.
It can be absorbed by water, so that marine organisms can use oxygen.
It can hold water vapor and transport it all over the world to be a key part of the water cycle.
It can carry scents. Scents can be sweet to create feelings of delight and strong memories. Scents can also be sour as a protective measure against corruption and disease.
It is an incredible medium for passing sound waves. Because sounds pass noticeably slower through air than light travels, someone with two working ears can determine the direction of the source of a sound. If sound traveled faster through air, this would be more difficult.
Because it is an insulator, air currents are created between areas of heated and cooled air, which can freshen and renew
An an insulator, it also prevents runaway lightning from electrocuting everything.
Air can be compressed for use as
Pneumatic mechanisms
Underwater breathing apparatus
Propulsion
Accelerating projectiles
Air brakes
Cleaning/SandBlasting
Flotation devices
Carbonated drinks
To recognize any one of these things would make air remarkable, but that all of these advantages exist within a single entity that we refer to as air speaks of a truly Grand Designer! All of creation speaks to his glory, and God is worthy of all praise.
Can you think of other design features of air? Add them to the comments.
OVER VIRGINA — Steve Hinton flies “Glacier Girl,” a P-38 Lightning dug out from 268 feet of ice in eastern Greenland in 1992. The aircraft was part of a heritage flight during an air show at Langley Air Force Base, Va., on May 21. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker)
U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons
The following is an interview I conducted with Dr. Assumptîon after he evaluated the evidence of the successful resurrection of a thousand year old fossil from its icy grave.
ApoloJedi: Thank you, Dr. Assumption for agreeing to give us your scientific analysis of the evidence of the fossil resurrection. Did I get your name correct?
Dr. Assumptîon: Actually, it’s Ass-oomp-shee-ohn
ApoloJedi: French?
Dr. Assumptîon: Swiss
ApoloJedi: Excellent. Please tell us a little about your scientific analysis of the fossil revival.
Dr. Assumptîon: It’s my pleasure, Mr. Jedi. Before, I begin, I want to construct a framework from which we evaluate the evidence. Scientists have to observe and make conclusions based on what is repeatable and demonstrable rather than relying on myths and pseudo-science. I have to prefix my comments with the proper scientific foundation because certain creationists have taken the evidence for this fossil resurrection and used it for their own nefarious purposes.
ApoloJedi: Most appreciated Dr. We wouldn’t want to have the thought police shut us down for spreading creationist propaganda. Please continue.
Dr. Assumptîon: So, in 1988 a group led by Patrick Epps and Richard Taylor used scientifically-developed tools such as ground-penetrating radar and snowmobiles to discover 8 large metallic objects, which we now know to be the fossils buried deep in the ice of Greenland. It wasn’t just deep…the fossils were covered with over 250 feet…that’s over 75 meters in scientific lingo…of snow and ice. About 2 years after the discovery of the fossils, the team returned to the grave to “unearth” their discovery. With additional scientifically-developed tools, these men and their team were able to melt a 4 foot-wide hole in the ice all the way down to the metallic fossils.
ApoloJedi: Excuse me, Dr. Why did the team look for metallic fossils in a place covered in ice?
Dr. Assumptîon: There were some myths that have been propagated by creationists that historical documents can trump scientific measurements, and they were taking the long-shot odds of trying to prove them correct. I want to show that a scientific evaluation of the evidence indicates that while they did get lucky with their discovery, they were completely wrong in their conclusions.
ApoloJedi: I see
Dr. Assumptîon: To shorten a long story, the scientific team was able to carefully disassemble one of the fossils, bring the pieces up through their 1.26 meter hole, and then reassemble the thousand year old fossil.
ApoloJedi: Sorry to interrupt again. How do you know the fossil was 1000 years old?
Dr. Assumptîon: I was just getting to that. We know from science that ice layers accumulate in such a way that can be measured for age. Each year there is an annual layer of snow/ice, and to determine the age, we just have to count the individual layers for the exact age. So, while I said 1000 years, I was just rounding up. The actual age of the recovered fossil is actually only 930 years old. We have a photo of a scale-model recreation of the expedition
Metallic fossil recovered from more than 260 feet of ice/snow
Dr. Assumptîon: While the creationists wanted to identify the metallic fossils as P-38 Lightnings built by Lockheed in 1942, scientists MUST reject pseudo-science and go with the evidence. The evidence of over 900 layers invalidates the creationist’s mythology.
ApoloJedi: So, if the fossil was not a world war 2 era propeller-driven fighter as it appeared to be, what were your scientific conclusions?
Dr. Assumptîon: Because creationists are blinded by their pre-conceived notions of the historical validity in their holy book and applying it to all situations, scientists must go with what we can observe. We have observed that a single ice layer forms every year…so if the fossil was buried under more than 900 layers, then it is clear that we must choose scientific conclusions over mysticism.
ApoloJedi: Do you think that science supports the theory that Vikings in about 1000AD used this aircraft to get from Norway to Greenland?
Dr. Assumptîon: Pseudo-scientists would try to tell you otherwise, but the evidence supports the Viking theory. It is a clear example of convergent evolution, which tells us that disparate sources developed the same “solution” under similar selection pressures. When the civilizations of the Vikings in Greenland were lost to natural selection, the need for this particular fossil’s solution was lost until the 1940s when similar selection pressures brought forth the similar solutions we saw by engineers at Lockheed. And this is totally supported by the evidence. The fossil clearly was not as advanced as the Depression-Era P-38Hs, which sadly have once again succumbed to the forces of extinction.
ApoloJedi: You said earlier that this fossil was revived. Can you get into that?
Dr. Assumptîon: Of course. Smart scientists hammered out the dents in the Viking aircraft, re-assembled it, filled it with aviation fuel, and it flew just like it did 900 years ago.
ApoloJedi: Well, you’ve got some interesting theories, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with us today.
In C.S. Lewis’ timeless tale, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a conversation ensues between Susan and a native of Narnia,
Mr. Beaver: “Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion.”
Susan: “Ooh. I’d thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
Mr Beaver: “Safe? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.”
God is good. Here are 27 times in the old testament that speak of the goodness (towb) of the LORD:
I Chronicles 16:34
II Chronicles 5:13
II Chronicles 7:3
II Chronicles 30:18
Ezra 8:18
Nehemiah 2:8
Nehemiah 9:20
Psalms 23:6
Psalms 25:8
Psalms 34:8
Psalms 52:9
Psalms 54:6
Psalms 73:1
Psalms 84:11
Psalms 85:12
Psalms 86:5
Psalms 100:5
Psalms 106:1
Psalms 107:1
Psalms 118:1
Psalms 118:29
Psalms 119:68
Psalms 135:3
Psalms 136:1
Psalms 143:10
Psalms 145:9
Jeremiah 33:11
I’ve mentioned BlueLetterBible.org before, and it’s one of my favorite Bible study tools. Let’s look at the Hebrew word for “good” and see if we can make some connections in other parts of scripture:
This Hebrew word ‘towb’ is used many times in the old testament, and it is translated as good, better, best, pleasant, excellent, prosperous. Now let’s look at places that pair ‘towb’ with its opposite: “ra” and “ra’a”, which is usually translated as evil, harm, destruction.
Some examples would be Genesis 31:29
“I (Laban) have the power to harm (ra’) you; but last night the God of your fathers said to me, ‘Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good (towb) or bad (ra).'”
I Samuel 24:17
“You (David) are more righteous than I (Saul). You have treated me with goodness (towb), but I have repaid you with evil (ra).”
My purpose in writing this post is twofold:
Remind everyone that the Almighty Creator is the opposite of evil. He is good!
To highlight the contradictions of old earth paradigms in God’s Word.
Without exception all old earth paradigms require that death, disease, suffering, harm, and predation existed prior to the rebellion of Adam and Eve. But as disciples of Jesus, we want to be in agreement with ALL of his eternal Word, so let’s look at the historical narrative in Genesis to see how a proper understanding of “towb” and “ra” can help us eliminate contradictions.
Seven times in the creation story of Genesis 1, God looked at what He had made and declared, “it was good” (towb – H2896). On the seventh time, when the Creator viewed all that He had made, He declared “it was very good.” The number 7 has symbolic meaning in God’s Word, as it seems to be used for emphasis. So, the fact that God declares his creation good and the 7th time “very good” should accentuate that God wants us to tune in to his super-repetition.
Genesis 1:29-30 God clearly says that He intends his creatures to eat fruits, seeds, and greens rather than engage in predatory behavior, and when we see Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25 there is clear evidence that the restoration of the new creation does not include harm, destruction, or predatory behavior.
“Towb” is used to describe the character of God, and God uses “towb” to describe his creation before sin entered it. “Ra” is the opposite of “towb”, and “ra” means harm, evil, and destruction. For old earthers to assume harm, evil, and destruction were part of the “very good” creation prior to sin is not just a contradiction, it actually speaks to the character of the Almighty. Can “towb” include evil, predatory behavior, and destruction?
The Bible says no, and we can trust God’s eternal Word. Old earth paradigms cannot be an acceptable part of Christian thinking because of the contradictions that are raised when one believes harm, destruction, and death were a part of God’s “very good” creation prior to sin…along with many other reasons.
Since we can trust God’s revelation about the past, we can trust Him with our future! Our good God is worthy of praise!!!
For years Matt Walsh has been an outspoken conservative commentator and blogger on politics and abortion. He has amassed an ardent audience through his multiple media portals. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his opinions.
With the release of his YouTube video, Why I am Not A Young Earth Creationist, this past week, he took a bold step into an area of theology for which he appears to be completely unprepared.
Walsh brings to the discussion monumental misunderstands of what biblical creation teaches …and not much else. Here are the glaring misunderstandings that he attributes to biblical creationists:
Biblical creationists take every single thing in the bible completely literally. Poetry, parables, exaggerations, symbolism are all held the same as history, doctrine and the words of Jesus.
This is a ridiculous view. Biblical creationists take the genre into consideration when reading God’s revealed word. Walsh’s opening point is very polemic and unhelpful to the conversation. Genesis is written as history. The author’s intent was to to convey to his readers that the events in Genesis are part of the history of God’s interactions with humanity and specifically the origins of the Hebrew people. The rest of the old testament and dozens of times in the new testament, Genesis is quoted as having actually happened. Genesis regarded by Moses, the other old testament authors and the new testament authors as history. Should Walsh want to believe that part of Genesis was metaphor and part history, where does this switch happen?
Biblical creationists demand that Genesis be a scientific encyclopedia that explains all fields of science in the greatest depth.
Again, this polemic misrepresentation adds nothing to the discussion. Nothing in scripture is intended to be a scientific treatise, but where scripture covers something scientific, it’s never incorrect. The creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is not concerned with teaching humanity about profound scientific principles. It is God’s revelation of his miraculous acts of creation. Since creation was supernatural acts involving his supreme power, why do old earthers, like Walsh, expect naturalistic explanations for these miracles but not the other miracles in the Bible? Virgin birth? Resurrection from the dead? These things are scientifically impossible. Why do old earthers specifically segregate the miracle of creation as impossible?
Biblical creationists demand that the word day means 24 hours every single time it is used throughout scripture without exception. According to Walsh, a day can be measured on earth, Pluto, or Saturn because God was not clear in his revelation, so he can take whatever frame of reference he wants a day to be. Walsh: “We have no reasons at all to assume that the days in Genesis 1 were 24 hours long.”
Biblical creationists agree that the Hebrew word “yom” can be translated in many ways. The key to understanding what it means in each passage, and specifically Genesis 1 is called exegesis. Look at the context and where scripture talks about this event in other places to see what the word means here. Each of the days of Genesis 1 are denoted with an ordinal (THE 1st day, THE 2nd day, THE 3rd day…), and each of the days is bounded by evening and morning. Looking at Exodus 20 (which is a passage that NO ONE says is poetry), God says your weeks should be like my creation week. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God…For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” So, by exegesis we have 100% verification that God intended his people to work for six 24-hour days and rest on one 24 hour day…just like He did during the creation week. So if old earthers want to change the definition of a day in this context they have to overcome the direct command from God about the course of a week and the ordinals and familiar boundaries of evening/morning.
Biblical creationists hate science and they think that all scientists in all fields of science are lying about their conclusions of long ages.
Again, more straw-man arguments that are not true. Most branches of science were started and developed by biblical creationists. There are axioms and assumptions in all scientific research. Biblical creationists forsake the naturalistic assumptions that the modern paradigm relies upon for their old earthism. If Walsh wants to accommodate old earth cosmology because the vast majority of scientists believe it, he is bound to accept the biological origins of humanity as well, which is also untenable from a biblical perspective.
Walsh starts his video with this friendly sounding quote: “We should be able to discuss an important and interesting issue without getting angry and without getting offended.”
But the more you watch his video, he is not interested in rational discussion. He is clearly not trying to be persuasive but is instead purposefully mischaracterizing those with whom he disagrees as morons.
Walsh gets his arguments mixed up at one point by saying there are days prior to there being an earth…except the first sentence in the Bible says that God created the earth at the beginning. He then misunderstands the definition of a day saying that there must be a light source or days mean nothing. This is not true. The definition of a day is 1 rotation of the earth on its axis. No light source necessary. But for his old earth position, he has a HUGE shortcoming in his foundations since a year is defined as the time is takes the earth to revolve around the sun. What are the units of time prior to the sun and earth coalescing from primordial space dust and how is that calibrated? They would say it’s 9 billion years, but what is a year prior to the calibration of a year existing?
Watching his video once was bad enough, but going back through it again to highlight his misunderstandings is nearly unbearable. So, while there are more strawmen arguments and lazy analysis of biblical creation, it is sufficient to say that Walsh could use a serious re-adjustment of his perspective regarding God’s revelation in Genesis. Our understanding of science is based upon God’s revelation from the Bible; not the other way around.
Should he want to do his due diligence (and he doesn’t care for Ken Ham) there’s more than enough information to learn what real biblical creationists teach from these resources:
It’s not a real word, but I’m going to construct it and use it as:
The abnormal fear of the smallest defined number.
Stephen Meyer lays out a case that makes it irrational to believe in evolution. The whole video is worth watching, but the link starts at minute 24, when his talk begins to destroy the foundation of evolution.
If you know and understand math, you’ll agree. I’ll leave alone (for now) that without a Christian worldview, one cannot even account for the invariant, absolute, and universal laws like mathematics. At about minute 30 he gets into the math itself:
For every 12 letters (in the English language) that are functional/meaningful there are 100,000,000,000,000 other ways to arrange those same characters…that are non-functional/meaningful. The very same things are true in the DNA protein case. The ratio to non-functional sequences to functional sequences is even more prohibitively small than in the case of the English language.
For a small protein, the chances of getting a functional sequence without guidance is 1 over 10 ^ 77. This is a number so small that it does not even warrant a definition with latin prefixes. The real problem is much worse for evolutionists who insist that natural selection acting on random mutations has generated all functional code. Since the chances of getting a non-functional protein are so much greater than all of the possible chances (all of the creatures 10 ^ 40) over the perceived available amount of time (3.5 X 10 ^ 9), logic dictates that we declare the evolutionary theory as failed.
Dr. Meyer built his case to answer theistic evolutionists, but the case is even more powerful when used against naturalists, who demand that there is no Creator. So fearful are evolutionists of these arguments that they choose not to even engage with Meyer’s arguments. They resort instead to strawman, ad hominem, and genetic fallacy arguments. When exposed to the near infinitely small chances that their worldview kingdoms have any substance, they become prey to YoctoNumeroPhobia. It is an irrational fear and is solvable by trusting the Creator in what He has revealed. It makes sense rationally (to trust One with infinite knowledge and love), logically (science supports the conclusion) and morally (God provides forgiveness for sin.)
I do want to cover a few comments that Meyer only minimally addresses in his talk. Meyer is not a biblical creationist, but I’m pretty sure that can be solved if he were to read my posts on this blog.
Many think they must adopt an evolutionary understanding of biological origins despite its substantial cost to the coherence of basic Christian doctrine.
I could not agree more!!!! The gospel of Jesus Christ is clear!
Adam and Eve rebelled and brought death, bloodshed, pain, and the curse of sin into creation. Genesis 3. Romans 5. Romans 8. I Cor 15
To bring glory to Himself, God’s plan to offer a substitute to take on God’s wrath in the place of sinful humans was made manifest in Jesus. Jesus took the curse of sin upon himself, which allowed God’s children to be in relationship to him.
Jesus rose from the dead.
Is evolutionary theory so well established that it makes it compulsory to read scripture in a completely different way.
It is so important that people not take naturalistic interpretations to scripture. So many heresies arise from trying to dilute the teachings of God’s revelation with cultural proclivities.
So, don’t let YoctoNumeroPhobia crush your soul.
God’s Word can be trusted in what He has revealed about history, so we can trust Him with our future! He is trustworthy!!!
For years now, the invasion of Christendom has been spearheaded by attacking the Bible. So much so, that now, even committed believers like Hugh Ross cannot see their own indoctrination to materialistic philosophies.
In Dr. Lisle’s article, he engages with a critic, who accommodates secular teachings into his interpretation of scripture. Dr. Lisle uses hermenuetics, logic, and science to re-calibrate the critic’s flawed thinking. If you’ve ever wanted to read dialogue on how to engage a Rossian with solid scripture and sound logic, then you will enjoy reading.
My little younger brother pointed me to your show a couple of years ago, and I’ve been listening ever since. I really appreciate the friendly format of the show. Every guest is treated with sincerity and the “debates” are free from personal attacks. Thanks for putting on a great show.
So, I just listened to your latest Unbelievable podcast with Phil Copan. He handled a tough position of answering critical questions with dexterity. It did seem however that the atheist caller, Andrew, got the best of Phil when Phil was unable to answer the major flaw of old earthism. We could all hear the relief in Andrew’s voice when he knew he would not have to contend with a Christian who consistently and faithfully interpreted the Bible. When Andrew pointed out that since Phil believes in billions of years that there would have to have been terrible suffering and destruction prior to the sin of mankind, Phil could only deflect the question. His defense was to say that the atheist was in no position to judge evil, and this is true: atheism cannot account for evil in their worldview. But as a Christian, he did not present a positive and compelling case for believing that the suffering and bloodshed was a beautiful part of God’s “Very good” creation. His only defense was a very poetic passage in Psalm 104, that he mistakenly believes was part of the pre-fall world. A proper exegesis would show that this passage poetically deals with both creation, flood, and post-flood times.
As I have listened to your show, almost every Christian guest that you have capitulates to the atheist’s origins story of billions of years. But there is no reason to give up Biblical authority to accommodate the atheist’s origins story. Biblical authority is at stake here.
Here is a short list of contradictions that are introduced into biblical interpretations when one accepts the atheist’s origins story of billions of years:
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The earth was not formed billions of years after the beginning.
Genesis 1:29-30 “everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” Animals were created as vegetarian. No predatory behavior until after the fall.
Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Because of God, we recognize goodness, and death/suffering/bloodshed is not part of this goodness. God chose to represent the death of his Beloved for thousands of years by having his people sacrifice an animal. But if animals had been callously dying for billions of years, why would the Almighty symbolize the cruel death of his son with something as common as animal death?
Genesis 3:18 “It (the ground) will produce thorns and thistles for you” If thorns are a result of the fall of mankind, why are there fossilized thorns that evolutionists claim are millions of years old?
Genesis 3:20 “Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living.” Phil and other old earthers disregard this passage by claiming that Adam and Eve could have been a representative couple within a large clan of hominids. All of humanity has to be a descendant of Adam and Eve for these Biblical passages like Gen 3:20 and Romans 5 to make sense theologically.
Exodus 20:9,11 “Six days you shall labor and do your work…For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth” It wasn’t billions of years or eras.
Isaiah 66:25 “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox…they will neither harm nor destroy” This passage is pretty clear that predatory behavior is harmful/destructive and is not part of God’s intention.
Mark 10:6 “At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Jesus was teaching that mankind was created at the beginning of creation and not billions of years after the beginning…or must you question whether the Creator knows about modern cosmology?
It would be nice to hear Christians defend God’s word without having to capitulate to the atheist’s primary tool for hammering at Christian foundations…the Word of God. And it is a shame that some Christians have rationalized the marginalization of scripture to accommodate modern political correctness in science, culture, and relationships.
We can trust God’s revelation about the past; therefore He is trustworthy about the future! Praise the Creator!!!
As you look through the pages of the Bible, it is very clear that the universe is not billions of years old. Jesus’ own words in Mark 10:6 says, “At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.”
Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly.1 Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.
The evidence seems far more consistent with the biblical account—it appears that stars were supernaturally created only thousands of years ago. With blue stars scattered across the cosmos, our universe certainly “looks” young.
Since we can trust God’s Word about history, we can trust Him with our future.
I always learn a lot when I read the articles from Jason Lisle at Biblical Science Institute.
For years Matt Walsh has been an outspoken conservative commentator and blogger on politics and abortion. He has amassed an ardent audience through his multiple media portals. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his opinions.
ApoloJedi 