Archived - Ask the Expert: Dr. Jason Lisle

With a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Dr. Jason Lisle is a powerful and pioneering new voice in the creationist movement as a speaker and researcher with Answers in Genesis ministry.

See two of Dr. Lisle books in our RESOURCES section!

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Dr. Lisle was the featured expert on CreationConversations.com

Comment by Kevin Robertson on February 15, 2010 at 11:17am: Hello Dr. Lisle,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I look forward to your response.

What is "dark matter" — the discovery of this seems to prove evolution, or does it?

Kevin

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on February 19, 2010 at 10:03am: "Dark matter” is the generic name we give to anything that cannot be seen directly but that is believed to exist because it exerts a detectable gravitational pull on visible objects.

The existence of dark matter was first hypothesized when astronomers measured the velocities of stars in galaxies. From the laws of gravity and motion, we can calculate how stars should orbit in their galaxy (just as we can calculate how planets will move in the solar system). Yet, the stars in virtually all spiral galaxies revolve faster than astronomers would have expected, based on the estimated mass of these galaxies. These observations have been verified many times. This leads to three possible conclusions: (1) The stars aren’t orbiting at all, they are flying away from the galaxy, (2) the laws of gravity or motion are wrong, or (3) the galaxy is more massive than estimated because much of its mass is not visible (dark matter): the extra mass causes the stars to orbit faster than they would otherwise.

Option number one doesn’t seem too likely. Most of the things God created are stable. The planets and moons in the solar system, most atoms, and indeed most of the things we observe have a high degree of stability. So, it is reasonable to conclude that galaxies are also stable. Moreover, recent observations can detect the actual motion of stars near the core of a galaxy; these observations indicate stable orbits.

Option number two is certainly possible. We do not know all of the laws of physics, and so undiscovered physical laws may be responsible for the fast velocities of the stars. A minority of both secular and creation astronomers/physicists believe this to be the case. The MOND theory is one such model. Creation physicist Hartnett also has an alternate physics model based on a five-dimensional variation of general relativity. Such ideas are worthy of study. However, modern physics works so incredibly well locally that most scientists have confidence that the laws of physics as we understand them are quite correct, or at least a very good approximation.

Option three: if galaxies are stable and if we correctly understand the laws of physics, then dark matter must exist. Galaxies have more in them than simply stars, gas, and dust (all of which we can detect). This extra mass gravitationally pulls on the stars and makes their orbits faster than they otherwise would be. I believe that dark matter is the most likely of the three possible solutions. Some astrophysicists believe that dark matter consists of small particles of a type that has not yet been discovered. Others believe that dark matter consists of perfectly ordinary matter, perhaps large numbers of "planets” that orbit the galaxy far away from any star so that they do not reflect enough light to be detected. Either is possible.

The existence of dark matter does not strongly affect creation models one way or the other. We can live with it, or without it. However, some big bang models require dark matter in order for them to work out properly. It would be a blow to such models if dark matter were disproved; however, the big bang supporters would simply adjust their models so that they work without dark matter. They would continue to believe in the big bang.

Bottom line: dark matter is an interesting scientific issue. There is strong evidence for its existence (though perhaps not totally definitive). And if it is proved (or disproved), it will not have a huge effect on the origins debate.

Comment by Craig Froman on February 26, 2010 at 10:19am: Dr. Lisle, I truly appreciate your time. Can the creationist model make predictions that might lead to a deeper understanding of science?

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 5, 2010 at 10:30am: Hi Craig. Yes, I’m convinced that creation as described in Genesis can give us insights into the natural world, and lead to new scientific discoveries. Let me clarify some terminology, and then I will give some examples.

First, there is some disagreement among creationists about how we should use words like "model”, "theory”, and so on. Rather than referring to "the creation model”, my preference on the matter would be to think in terms of creation models (plural), where each model explains some aspect of the world in detail, but not others. A creation model should be based on the Bible and completely compatible with it, but should go beyond the text and give details that can lead to predictions that are scientifically verifiable/falsifiable. Since a creation model (by this definition) goes beyond the text of Scripture, any given model must be held to tentatively. Moreover, we can have competing models which attempt to explain the same phenomena.

For example, there is Dr. Baumgardner’s model of runaway plate tectonics. This model explains some aspects of the world (e.g. the positions of the continents, the composition of the ocean floor, the evidence for magnetic reversals, the mid-Atlantic ridge, etc.) but is not designed to account for others (such as distant starlight). The model is completely compatible with Scripture, but goes beyond it (the Bible does not mention plate tectonics, ocean floor composition, etc.) It has made testable predictions (cooler regions in the mantle) which have been verified. It is a very good model and has increased our understanding of the natural world. Nonetheless, since it goes beyond the text of Scripture it is not infallible, and therefore there is always a chance that a better model will replace it in the future.

Many additional examples could be cited: Mike Oard’s ice age model, Dr. Humphrey’s model of planetary magnetic fields, etc. These have certainly enhanced our understanding of science. There is a tendency for creationists to elevate favorite models to the level of Scripture. This is inappropriate and very dangerous. Furthermore, when such models are refuted by further investigation, these creationists can find it very hard to let go. The canopy model would be one common example of this. Such models must always be taken as just that: models. They are not Scripture, and they can be wrong.

Perhaps some creationists will disagree with my use of the terminology, and that is perfectly fine. I am concerned, however, that some creationists (and most evolutionists) mischaracterize the nature of the origins debate by thinking of biblical creation and evolution as competing models. They are not. They are competing worldviews – complete systems of thought. Unlike a model, a worldview is completely comprehensive, forming the foundation for all thinking and experience. Moreover, a worldview cannot be falsified by scientific procedures; this is because the worldview controls those very procedures. It provides the interpretive framework in light of which all evidence will be evaluated.

Perhaps the most significant power of the creation worldview is that it makes science possible. Only in a universe that is upheld in a logical and uniform fashion by the power of God would we expect to be able to make testable predictions about future conditions. Only in the biblical worldview can we be assured that the cycles of nature will be in the future as they have been in the past (Genesis 8:22). All science is predicated upon this crucial presupposition.

Creation therefore isn’t simply a model. Rather it is the fact that makes models possible. In light of this, any scientific discovery is an illustration of the truth of creation. Whenever anyone learns anything about the universe by the methods of science, it demonstrates that creation is true. It is in this sense that I believe having a creation worldview can tremendously deepen our understanding of science. It is on

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 5, 2010 at 10:31am: It is only because creation is true that science is possible.

Comment by Craig Froman on March 5, 2010 at 10:47am: Thank you so much for this well-reasoned response! Your clarification of the issues involved is very detailed and understandable. I truly appreciate your time in helping me better grasp the terminology and worldviews.

Comment by Janell Robertson on March 8, 2010 at 3:26pm: Thank you, Dr. Lisle, for your information. I never realized how perfectly it all fits together — God's magnificent, logical, uniform creation makes science possible. So very well said.

It seems sad to me that some "science" tries desperately to prove God a myth.

In the past week I've seen two ubiquitous news articles touting millions of years/evolution ("bleeding" glacier, and the "certainty" of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs) that can only serve to deepen the divide between the facts of creation and the theory of evolution if we don't refute it to our children. How do we point out the illustration of creation in these news stories and reaffirm God's creative hand in it all?

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 18, 2010 at 9:02am: Hello Janell. Yes, there are many scientists who try to persuade others to think of creation as a myth – something that is unscientific or irrational. Ironically, science and rationality only make sense in a biblical creation worldview. Only if the Bible is true would we expect to have absolute, unchanging, universal, immaterial things such as laws of logic by which we reason. These reflect the thinking of God and are contingent upon His nature.

Also, why would the universe obey consistent, predictable laws of physics that happen to be organized in a mathematical way that is understandable by the human mind? This makes no sense if the universe were simply the result of a big bang, and if the human brain were simply the result of millions of mutations that conveyed survival value. But it makes perfect sense in the biblical worldview, in which God upholds the entire universe in a consistent and predictable way that can be accessed by the human mind which He also created. Science and rationality presuppose biblical creation.

Whenever we read an article touting some new finding which allegedly supports evolution, we should remember a few things. First, we must keep in mind the biases of the scientists and reporters involved. My point is not to criticize (we all have biases after all). But we should keep in mind how such biases will affect a person’s interpretation of the data. The secularist may interpret a layer of iridium in the rock layers as having something to do with the demise of dinosaurs, since he interprets it to be millions of years old and happening at the same time as dinosaur extinction in his worldview. A creationist would interpret the same evidence differently.

Second, whenever we read that evolutionists finally have the "smoking gun” – the absolute proof of their position, we should remember that this is a tacit admission that they did not have proof before. Yet, they were just as dogmatic about evolution before their discovery. Of course, the latest discoveries never are actually proofs of evolution. But my point is that any claim that they "finally” have proof is an admission that they did not before. And the next new discovery will dethrone the current one, revealing that evolutionists also realize that the current one does not actually prove what they are claiming.

Finally, we must keep in mind that any scientific discovery (whatever it is) is a confirmation of biblical creation – since science would not be possible in a secular universe. Whenever a secular scientist makes any discovery whatsoever, it is because he has (perhaps unwittingly) relied upon God’s consistent upholding of the universe, God’s laws of logic, and his own brain which God created to be able to understand things. Therefore, any scientific discovery whatsoever is a proof that creation is true.

Comment by Teresa Beck on March 20, 2010 at 1:48pm: Dr. Lisle,
Years ago (15-20), I heard a creation speaker postulate that perhaps Neanderthals had larger brains and prominent eyebrow ridges and other differences because they were among the first couple of generations of post-flood individuals who were living to be over 200 years old. Is there any research available from creationists that supports this position, or might it just have been the assumption of the speaker? I think about this every once in a while when I hear about finds like the caves in France, where apparently sophisticated Neanderthal artwork was found or "surprisingly" sophisticated settlements are discovered. Just wondering. I love archaeology, though I decidedly do not love the conclusions many archaeologists draw. I wish there were more Christian archaeologists publishing research. If there are, and you can point me in their direction, I would be very grateful!

Thank you for all that you do to promote the truth and trustworthiness of God's Word,
Teresa

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 22, 2010 at 2:10pm: Hello Teresa,

I also have heard the claim the Neanderthal features were due to their long lifespan; I believe that Jack Cuzzou promotes this position. However, I do not think this is the best explanation, and is not the one that most creationists would hold. Neanderthals were human beings that lived in Europe after the global flood. From what I can tell, Neanderthal characteristics are simply what we might call "ethnic traits” rather than being due to long ages. All of their traits (elongated skull, heavy brow ridges, large septum, recessed chin, elongated mandible, etc.) are well within the range of characteristics of human beings today. None of them fall outside. That is, some people today have an elongated skull, or heavy brow ridges, etc. What is unusual about Neanderthals is that each individual usually had all of these features.

Neanderthal fossils are all post-flood, so they represent one of the people-groups that resulted from the dispersion at Babel. However, we don’t know exactly how long after Babel. Fossil evidence indicates that Neanderthals lived at the same time as other people groups (fossils found in the same area) that do not have Neanderthal characteristics. So, my inference would be that Neanderthal characteristics are not due to long ages, since other people living at the same time (and presumably with a similar lifespan) do not show such features.

A good resource to learn more about archaeology from a biblical perspective is the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR). Their website is http://www.biblearchaeology.org. Some of their research is posted under the "research" tab on that page.

Comment by Terry J. White on March 22, 2010 at 4:57pm: Dr. Lisle,
Usher dated creation at 4004 BC, according to Hebrew computation.
Josephus dated creation at 4658 BC.
Do you believe that they are close, accurate, or way off?
Terry White

Comment by Teresa Beck on March 23, 2010 at 6:06am: Thank you, Dr. Lisle. I will check into the resources you mentioned, and I appreciate your answer.

Comment by Ryan Tipple on March 23, 2010 at 4:19pm: The bible describes the "waters above" in the original creation, which would have come down as a result of the catastrophic flood. Kent Hovind theorizes that this refers to a super-cold crystaline ice canopy that increased air pressure and oxygen levels, blocked harmful sun rays, and made it possible for Man to live much longer as Genesis describes.

What is your scientific opinion of this pre-flood phenomena, and what forces would be primarily responsible for retaining these 'waters'?

Comment by Carol Flett on March 23, 2010 at 5:41pm: Do we have any evidence that points out the trail of the North American Indian right from Babel? I am looking for a starting point for research for an children's adventure story. Where would you suggest I begin?

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 24, 2010 at 2:51pm: Hi Terry,

Many scholars have attempted to compute the date of creation by dealing with the biblical records and extra-biblical literature. They all arrive in the general vicinity of 4000 B.C., with some just a bit less, and others just over 5000 B.C. The slight variations are due to disagreements on how various spans are to be connected. For this reason, it is probably impossible to know the exact date. However, there can be little doubt that the approximate date for creation is around 4000 B.C., or perhaps a just a bit earlier.

We generally use the Ussher chronology here at Answers in Genesis. (It is useful for all of us on staff to be using the same standard when talking about the estimated dates of biblical events.) Ussher was a particularly brilliant Bible scholar. I would give his computations more weight than others. But I would not dismiss the estimates computed by others either. The bottom line is that we can be certain that the world is approximately 6000 years old, but we cannot know the precise age.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 24, 2010 at 2:51pm: Hello Carol,

I am not aware of any specific records or archaeological finds that would give us the path that the Native Americans took from Babel. (Though, I confess that this is not my area of expertise.) Assuming that they traveled across the Bering Strait, they must have done so relatively shortly after Babel (within a few hundred years), because this is when the ice age would have peaked (with the lowest ocean water levels and the largest ice bridges) making travel across the Bering Strait possible.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 24, 2010 at 2:53pm: Hi Ryan,

The Bible does indicate that during the creation week, water was separated from above and below the sky. The meaning of the "waters below” is clear; these are what now constitute our oceans. God gathered them together on day 3 (Genesis 1:9). The meaning of the "waters above” the sky is disputed among creationists.

In the past some creationists proposed that the "waters above” were a canopy of water vapor (or ice crystals in some versions) that somehow produced ideal conditions on the earth’s surface; it was suggested that this canopy collapsed during the flood year, supplying a substantial amount of water for the flood. And yes, some had supposed that increased atmospheric pressure contributed to the longer lifespan of the antediluvians. However, there appear to be unassailable scientific problems with such models. They inevitably make earth’s temperature intolerably hot. And in the ice-crystal versions, it doesn’t appear to be gravitationally stable: why wouldn’t the ice fall as snow?

More importantly, there are biblical problems with such ideas. The Hebrew word for "waters” is "mayim.” In Scripture, it normally refers to liquid water as opposed to ice or vapor (each of which correspond to different Hebrew words.) A vapor or ice canopy does not match the water required by Genesis. Moreover, whatever the "waters above” are, they were not eliminated by the global flood. The Psalmist mentions the waters above as still existing long after the flood in Psalm 148:4. So, whatever they are, they are still there.

The earth’s climate may indeed have been different before the flood; but this does not require a canopy of any sort. A different arrangement of the continents with different oceanic currents, or even a slight difference in solar intensity can have a drastic impact on the earth’s climate. We should also remember that the human race went through a genetic bottleneck at the time of the flood. This might account for the reduced lifespan afterwards.

So what are the "waters above?” We may not know for certain, but I will offer a supposition. I would suggest that the waters above may simply be referring to clouds. Clouds are comprised of tiny droplets of liquid water in suspension. They are "above the sky” in the sense of being above a substantial portion of it (in Hebrew, a part of something can count for the whole), and they exist both before and after the flood. Although many creationists seem to prefer a more exotic interpretation, the more ordinary interpretation is usually the best. I consulted ten commentaries on this verse, and all ten of them identified the "waters above” as clouds. So, that gives me some confidence that I’m not too far out on this issue.

Comment by Ryan Tipple on March 29, 2010 at 9:45am: Thank you very much, Dr. Lisle

I had always assumed the reference impled clouds as well, but wondered how there could be enough clouds to produce forty days of rain. I also didn't understand how the earth could be submersed using only the amount of water currently on the planet. Both problems seems well-answered by the model of a unified crust floating on a layer of water between it and the core, which was somehow cracked at the time of the flood, creating the tectonic plates and releasing the subterranean waters to shoot out like a massive oil well. (not sure the exact name of the model) This also explains the Bible's reference to the "fountains of the deep". Furthermore, it makes sense to me that if the Earth's rotation is currently slowing as a result of movement on it's surface (tides, eathquakes, etc) then this deep water would have made a barrier that would allow surface movement to have no impact on rotation rate.

What model do you consider strongest for the flood?

Comment by Jeff Brace on March 31, 2010 at 3:48pm: When Christ sent His apostles to spread the gospel He told them to knock the dust from their feet of the towns or people they met who refused the message. It seems creation apologetics has a place but forum after forum turns into wasted arguments. Should we be doing the same as the apostles?

Comment by Ryan Tipple on April 1, 2010 at 10:57am: Dr. Lisle, sorry to add to my current question, but I recently found the discovery of noctilucent clouds of ice that hover near the poles, but I don't know much about them. Have you done any research on this phenomina, and does it seem plausible that these types of clouds could have expanded across much more of the atmosphere in pre-flood times?

Comment by Francis Toner on April 6, 2010 at 7:12pm: How can a person Question the beginning of the word of God and yet believe the rest of the word of God. They say I don’t believe in the six days creation, I believe on mans assumptions that it took millions of years for creation, but I believe Jesus died for my sins, How can that be. Why do they never question Joshua when the Lord told him to march around Jericho for seven days, how long were those days 1000years or millions of years. No, It does not make sense, yet it is the same Hebrew word that means a 24 hour day, ( Yom and especially followed by night or morning or by a number.) Which always means a twenty four hour day. In genesis 1:3-31; How many times is it repeated, and there was evening and there was morning the first day, all the way through to the six day. I wonder if those same people when they see Revelation 21:1; Then I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth, for the first Heaven and the first Earth had passed away. I wonder if they believe this will take millions of years as well, or do they really believe it? How can we make assumptions that those people are saved or unsaved, because they claim Jesus as Lord and savior. Col 1;16;For by him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visable and unvisable, wheather thrones or powers or rulers or authorities, all things were created by him and for him He is before all things and in Him all things hold together. How can we virtually call Him a liar. When he was there with the Father and holy spirit and the Angels. And then call Him Lord and Savior. Even though they have great insights into the word of God, and yet be so blind. You know we can fool man most of the time, but we can’t fool God any of the time. Not that I am super spiritual or something, far from it.I just believe that if you believe in the word of God, you believe it completely from start to end. To be a workman approved of God rightly deviding the word of God. And I pray for a closer walk with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Frank Toner

Comment by Jeff Brace on April 6, 2010 at 8:10pm: That was an inspiring post Francis. I enjoyed it immensely :)

Comment by Carol Flett on April 6, 2010 at 8:46pm: Me too!

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 7, 2010 at 1:01pm: Hello Ryan.

I’m glad my previous response was helpful to you. To answer your follow-up question, currently, Dr. John Baumgardner’s model of catastrophic plate tectonics seems the strongest. It is fully compatible with the Scriptures and with known science, and makes testable predictions that have been confirmed. Of course, neither John nor I would claim that the model is infallible; it could always be overturned by future research. But for the moment, it seems very good.

Genesis 7:11 teaches that "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” The "great deep” is understood to be the ocean (e.g. Genesis 1:2). We don’t know exactly what "all the fountains of the great deep” refers to, but it seems to imply that a great deal of the water for the flood came from the oceans themselves, perhaps as a result of tectonic activity. In Dr. Baumgardner’s model, jets of hot water occur at certain places on the ocean floor; the water then falls back as rain. So, the primary source of water from the flood comes from the oceans, and need not be stored in the atmosphere.

The very slight slowing of earth’s rotation is due to a different phenomenon. It is due to tidal friction between the earth and the moon. However, it is true that tectonic activity such as massive earthquakes can very slightly affect Earth’s rotation rate by changing its moment of inertia.

I have not done any specific research on noctilucent clouds. Since noctilucent clouds are not particularly well-understood, it would be really difficult to know with any certainty whether they were more prevalent in pre-flood times. If they are indeed formed on dust seeds produced by volcanic activity or micrometeorites (which seems reasonable to me), then I would speculate that they were less common before the flood, when volcanic activity was presumably less, and micrometeoroids had not accumulated significantly.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 7, 2010 at 1:01pm: Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think we should be doing the same as the apostles. According to 1 Peter 3:15 we are to be ready to give an answer when people ask us for a reason. Being ready to give an answer is not the same as giving an answer. When people are not being genuine, when their purpose is simply to mock or deceive, it may be perfectly appropriate to not give an answer (e.g. Luke 20:1-8).

When we encounter those who mock biblical creation we should consider the wisdom found in Proverbs 26:4-5. We should never "answer the fool according to his folly” in the sense of actually embracing his standard, otherwise we would be like him – which is to say it would be foolish. On the other hand, we should show the critic the absurdity of his standard by pushing it to its logical conclusion. We point out the ridiculous nature of unbiblical presuppositions, and challenge the critic to defend them. When done with gentleness and respect, this process will sometimes bring a bit of much-needed humility to the critic, and his mocking tone will diminish.

However, some people are so resistant to anything of God that even when their position has been reduced to absurdity, they will continue to mock mindlessly. For such people there is simply no point in further conversation. Indeed, it would be unwise to continue to give the Word of God to those who have demonstrated that they will simply trample on it and turn on you (Matthew 7:6).

Comment by Carol Flett on April 7, 2010 at 1:45pm: We also have a responsibility to be constantly teaching our children and answering them with honest answers. How can we answer them, unless we understand, ourselves

Comment by Jeff Brace on April 7, 2010 at 4:07pm: Thanks so much for your response Dr. Lisle. I have enjoyed immensely your books and it is an honor to chat with you. THanks for your ministry and the help it has given me and so many others. God Bless :)

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on April 7, 2010 at 7:20pm: Hi, I am wondering what some simple challenges to evolution are, or how to word them so that if I am talking to someone that will try to confuse me won't be able to. That probably isn't the kind of question I'm supposed to ask, but maybe you have some advice? Thanks.

Comment by Francis Toner on April 8, 2010 at 6:18am: Hi just like to thank Jeff Brace and carol Flett for their encouragement. yours in Christ Frank

Comment by Francis Toner on April 9, 2010 at 6:47am: What about this new find, got to be the missing link, when will they ever stop trying to make monkeys of them selves.Genesis 1:17;So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Its not evolution, its devolution. Praise God for his Holy word Romans 1:19 - 20; since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. I cant understand them? I can only put it down too 2cor4:4;The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God. Yours in Christ Frank Toner

Comment by Francis Toner on April 12, 2010 at 5:07am: I think this is a wonderful site, IT can give great answers to creation and many other things as well. I paise God for leading me to this site. I have listen to Ken Ham speak and its fantastic to have ken and all the other people on this site to come too when looking for answers. Romans 8:28; And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who Love Him,who have been called according to His purpose.verse 31;What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us.Verse 37; No in all things we are more than conquerors through Him who Loved us. Yours in Christ Frank

Comment by Ian Juby on April 15, 2010 at 10:51pm: Hi Francis,
I'm new to this site, but I did just post a blog about the new "Missing Link", Australopithecus sediba - it's item #3 I think in my newsletter, which I just posted:
http://www.creationconversations.com/profiles/blogs/april-14-2010-crevo-newsletter

I agree - I'm glad a friend pointed me to this website, and I'm sorry I didn't know about it sooner! I'll be putting a plug in for it in my next newsletter for sure.

God bless,
ian

Comment by Thomas Mark Seckel on April 19, 2010 at 11:19pm: Dr Lisle,
What would you recommend as a good resource to learn basic philosophy? I would like to learn how to recognize an erronious argument or an ill applied philosophy during a discussion. Your videos have been a great help.

Comment by Matthew on April 19, 2010 at 11:43pm: I am doing a research paper for my biology class in 10th grade. I have to have seven topics. Which seven topics would be best to use (i.e carbon dating, rock layers, etc.) to disprove evolution as a whole.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 20, 2010 at 8:30am: Hello Jeremiah,

You will find that most evolutionists have not ever really thought about their own position; they simply take it for granted. And so it is often effective to ask a very simple, straightforward question to get an evolutionist to start thinking. For example, "which gender evolved first?” It’s a really simple question, but I don’t think there is any good answer from the evolutionist camp. Other simple challenges to evolution are: how information in DNA could possibly come about by natural processes, the apparently irreducible complexity of living creatures, and ubiquitous evidence for the youth of the world such as C-14 in allegedly ancient diamonds. These are all relatively simple lines of evidence, but they do not have a simple answer from the evolutionist camp.

Worldview questions are very simple, but very effective: "How do you decide right from wrong?” There are only a few answers an evolutionist can give to that. He can say, "It’s whatever the majority decides” or "It’s an inborn feeling” etc. But then a good follow-up question is devastating: "If it’s whatever the majority decides, then the majority can never be wrong about anything. So if I could convince the majority of people that it is okay to kill you, would that really make it okay?” Few people would agree to that. And even if they did, I could always ask, "why? Why should we feel any obligation whatsoever to do what other people want?”

Comment by Ryan Tipple on April 20, 2010 at 11:23am: The athiests that I've heard answer the 'right-from-wrong' question always use the Liberal Harm/Do Unto Others principle that it's only logical and instictual that doing what is 'morally right' promotes survival, which of course it does, and that morals evolved as Man learned that working together (as also seen in ape populations) in a civil society is key to better living. I'm not sure how to argue the point further except to argue that if biological evolution couldn't happen, neither could moral evolution. And then we're right back to square one.

Comment by CHarles Hadden on April 20, 2010 at 3:47pm: When were fungi created??

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on April 20, 2010 at 3:56pm: Thank you very much, Dr Lisle! I think that will help me a lot in the future. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. Mr Tipple, I was given a book called Building Belief and it has helped a lot with worldviews and how to confront some bad ideas, here is a link: http://tinyurl.com/y3n9y4m I hope this helps!

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 21, 2010 at 8:41am: Hi Thomas,

The best resource for learning basic philosophy is the work of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen was a devout Christian, 6-day creationist, was an ordained pastor, and had a PhD in philosophy. He was a very sharp thinker, and I have learned much from him. You can get both his written works and a large number of his audio lectures. He has several classes on apologetics now on CD/MP3, which would include the basics of philosophy. He also has very advanced courses on philosophy, now available on CD/MP3. These can be purchased at www.cmfnow.com.

For learning to spot erroneous arguments, a good book on logic would be helpful. S. Morris Engel’s book "With Good Reason” is a nice introduction to logical fallacies. For a good textbook on logic, I recommend Copi and Cohen’s "Introduction to Logic.” My book "The Ultimate Proof of Creation” has two chapters on spotting logical fallacies, and I have just written another book on this topic, to be published shortly.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 21, 2010 at 9:29am: Hi Matthew,

If you really want to disprove evolution, you will have to use the worldview internal critique approach. That is, you assume for the sake of argument that evolution is true, and then show how this leads to a logical inconsistency. For example, evolutionists claim that they have figured out that life evolved on this planet by observations of the evidence, and logical reasoning. However, if evolution were true, there would be no reason to think that our senses are reliable (since they are simply the result of random mutations that did not reduce the chances of survival), and thus no reason to trust the observations. Nor would there be any reason to trust the conclusions of the brain, since it too is simply a result of random mutations in the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, if evolution were true, there would be no reason to believe it. That’s a simplified argument of course, but hopefully the basic idea is clear.

For some specific illustrations of the inconsistency of the evolution worldview, consider: laws of logic, laws of nature, the uniform (invariant, universal) nature of laws of logic and laws of nature, morality, the basic reliability of senses, reliability of memory, human dignity and freedom, and the understandability of the universe. Evolution cannot make sense of any of these, yet evolutionists do accept these things as true. This is irrational. A rational person has a reason for what he or she believes; yet, evolutionists do not have a reason for these things on their own professed worldview. Most importantly, the Creator Himself has given us a written record containing some of the details of how He created the universe – and it wasn’t through evolution. My book "the Ultimate Proof of Creation” has a lot more on this topic.

It never hurts to show some specific scientific challenges to evolution as well. The fact that DNA has information in it, yet mutations and natural selection can only remove information seems a powerful confirmation of creation to me. I think the discovery of C-14 in diamonds is about as good an evidence for a young earth as one could hope for. Examples of irreducible complexity within a living cell also confirm creation.

But keep in mind that these will never actually disprove evolution because the evolutionist can always appeal to the fact that we don’t know everything about science: there could be some undiscovered process that could account for such things in the future. And he’s not wrong. Therefore, although I like to include some of the scientific challenges to evolution in a discussion on origins, I never rest my case on them. My case rests on the fact that God has told us how He created the universe in His Word, and any challenge to God’s word is always internally inconsistent, and therefore false.

Comment by Scott Michael Speagle on April 21, 2010 at 10:19am: I just got a question that the only way to explain marsupials on Australia was with a local not global flood. I sent him the link to an AiG article were it references the problem - do you know of any other articles that address the problem as the main topic or any thoughts on how to respond? Thanks, Doc.

P.S. You are the coolest; I'll have a lot of questions on time and space but I've got to bill at some point this morning!

Comment by Matthew on April 21, 2010 at 5:03pm: Thank you for answering my question Dr. Lisle

Comment by Martin Smith on April 21, 2010 at 6:48pm: Heya Dr. Lisle, I’d like to thank you in advance should you respond to my questions. I actually have two that I’d like to ask, one about your book "The Ultimate Proof of Creation”, and the other about Genetics and Information. If you reply to either I will be very thankful.

In regards to the ultimate proof you claim at several points in the book that the Christian worldview is the only rational worldview. For instance, on page 40, "only the Christian worldview ... can make sense of the universe.” Your argument is that only the Christian worldview provides reasons for the preconditions of intelligibility being true and that any worldview which cannot provide sufficient reasons is thus irrational. Your argument rests on the claims you make on page 41,

"In order for a belief to count as knowledge, a person needs to have a good reason for a true belief. Therefore, it is not possible to have knowledge of something without having a reason for it.”

This claim seems clearly false to me. For one, does it meet its own standard? What good reasons do we have for thinking that it isn’t possible to have knowledge of something without good reason? There are lots of propositions I hold that I am justified in classing as knowledge beliefs, without basing them on other propositions. Imagine you are picking apples. Do you hold the belief that you are picking apples because you can construct an argument demonstrating that that is so? No, you believe you are picking apples because you are doing so and your belief naturally attends the event. Obviously there are beliefs do require good reasons for holding to count as knowledge, but not all beliefs are like this.

Let us take the preconditions of intelligibility. It would surely be irrational to disbelieve any of them. If I didn’t believe in the laws of logic it would be irrational to use any sort of logical reasoning to reach that conclusion. Any argument made against the preconditions of intelligibility necessarily fails because it would presuppose their validity. As such it is always rational for a person to believe in them as the alternative is a self-stultifying position. That means that even if my worldview does not provide a reason for why the preconditions should be true, I am still rationally justified in believing them. The only problems I would face would occur if my worldview was such that, were it true, the preconditions logically could not be true. As the preconditions must necessarily be taken to be true, I would then have a defeater for my worldview. As such the ultimate proof would only work in the manner you intend it to if non-Christian worldviews were such that if they were true it would be logically impossible for the preconditions to be true. So long as a worldview is not logically incompatible with the preconditions, that worldview and the preconditions can be rationally believed in even if that worldview provides no reason as to why the preconditions should be true. I think morality is the only thing you demonstrated materialism to be logically incompatible with.

My second question concerns the common Creationist claim that evolution has no mechanism for increasing genetic information. I’m in dialogue with a sceptical friend who has contested this claim. He linked me to this youtube video which aims to debunk it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

I don’t expect you to watch it (though obviously doing that would also be helpful) I was just wondering if you could help me understand the notion of information as it relates to genetics better. I have encountered analogies that attempt to explain genetic information in terms of the English language. This sequence: "usdghsipjv” is meaningless for example, whereas "I like apologetics” is not. Duplication does not add information because "I like apologetics I like apologetics” does not contain any more information than the single "I like apologetics.” Surely anything understandable is information. If I randomly generat

Comment by Martin Smith on April 21, 2010 at 6:48pm: *continued*

If I randomly generate code in a sequence and it happens to come out with "I like apologetics” you will understand that. In a machine, if the code is randomly changed with a result that the machine understands, the machine clearly takes that as meaningful information. Is it not the same in living creatures? Perhaps a mutation randomly occurs. It may even be harmful. But the fact that the ‘software’ used for reading the genetic code understands the mutated sequence is evidence that the mutation produced new information.

Perhaps you choose to define information as code with intent and a mental origin. Are you then not begging the question when you challenge the evolutionist to give an example of mutations increasing information? It would look like this:

Christian: "Mutations cannot provide new genetic information”
Atheist: "Yes they do, they change the code in a way the ‘software’ understands.”
Christian: "Yeah but I define information as requiring an intelligent source.”
Atheist: "That’s arbitrary! I’ve just shown you a way that natural processes produce meaningful code”

Thanks you for taking the time to read this. Creationist ministries had a large hand in bringing me to Christ. God bless,

Martin

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 22, 2010 at 8:55am: Hi Ryan,

The evolutionists who respond with "people have evolved a sense of morality because it promotes survival of the species” have committed (at least) two logical fallacies. First, they have committed the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. In other words, they haven’t answered the question I am posing. My question is "How can we account for the fact that human beings ought to behave in a particular way?” Instead of answering this question, they have tried to answer the question "How can we account for the fact that human beings DO behave in a particular way?” But that’s a different question. My question is about how we account for what should be. The evolutionist has not answered this, but is instead trying to account for what is. He has committed the naturalistic fallacy: confusing what is with what should be: "People do behave in such a way because it generated survival value in the past.” In doing this, he has not truly accounted for morality – which is about how we should behave, not necessarily how we do behave.

Therefore, when a person says that what is right (i.e., what you should do) is what contributes to the survival of the species, a good follow-up question to ask is: "Why should I care about the survival of the species? In your worldview, when I’m dead, that’s it. I’ll never even know I existed. So why should I care if the species lives on after me?” There can never be any obligation to do anything in a chance universe, and so the evolutionist is left without a foundation for objective morality.

It also might be helpful to point out that what is morally right does not always contribute to the propagation of the species – sometimes it’s just the reverse. Rape might produce more offspring, but does that make it right? Notice also that when an evolutionist tries to argue "we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us,” he’s relying upon the Christian worldview. Only in the Christian worldview does it make sense to be concerned about the well-being of others, i.e. because they too are made in the image of God and God holds all of us accountable. So, I could just say, "Yes, in my worldview we should be concerned about others: they are made in God’s image. But in your worldview, why should I be concerned about others?”

Whenever an evolutionist argues "We don’t need God to account for morality. What is ‘good’ is ________.” Simply ask, "Why _______?” Whatever the evolutionist picks as his standard for morality will inevitably be totally arbitrary. Why did he pick that standard and not another? Only in the Christian worldview do we have moral obligation. God has created us and we are accountable to Him because He will hold us accountable. No other worldview can account for what should be.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 22, 2010 at 9:09am: Hi Charles,

We know that fungi were created during the creation week from Exodus 20:11. It’s hard to know for certain on which day they were created. But we can make an informed guess. Apparently, in the biblical taxonomic system, many forms of fungi were included with plants. So, these forms (and perhaps all forms) would have been made on day 3. If some fungi are animal-associated, then they would have been made on days 5 and 6. For further information, we have an ARJ article on the biblical role of fungi here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/fungi-from-a-biblical-perspective.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 22, 2010 at 10:51am: Hi Scott,

It is actually quite difficult to account for marsupial distribution with anything other than a worldwide flood. I was taught that marsupials evolved in Australia due to its isolation; but this does not easily account for the marsupials found in South America, nor the marsupial fossils found in Europe, Asia, and North America. I don’t think this is the standard secular view anymore for those reasons.

But the worldwide flood can account for marsupial distribution. In today’s world, marsupials don’t normally compete very well with placental mammals. Thus, as the animals dispersed from the Ararat region after the flood, the marsupials would tend to be on the periphery. Also, they can travel fairly quickly since they carry their young in their pouch. They could have reached Australia by land/ice bridges during the ice age that followed the global flood. Being on the periphery of the distribution, they would have reached Australia and North and South America before the placental mammals. However, when the ice age ended, Australia was isolated (before the placental mammals could reach it). And so the marsupials thrived without competition there, whereas they went extinct in most other parts of the world (with some exceptions like the Opossum in North America) where they had to compete with placental mammals.

Also, watch out for the straw-man argument that marsupials would have had to come from Australia to the Ark. We make no such claim, and there is no reason to suppose that animals had the same geographic distribution before the flood as they do today. In fact, most creationists believe that the continents were different before the flood anyway.

There is a chapter in Answers Book volume I on this topic written by Paul F. Taylor, also available online at answersingenesis.org. There is also an article published by John Woodmorappe on the topic. John’s article includes the possibility of human’s helping with the transport of animals by boat after the flood. It’s found in his book on "Studies in Flood Geology” and is also published in the proceedings of the second ICC conference. There are probably more, but those are the only two I can think of at the moment. I hope this helps.

Comment by Ryan Tipple on April 22, 2010 at 11:12am: Thanks again! I look forward to seeing what other questions come up.

Comment by Scott Michael Speagle on April 22, 2010 at 2:51pm: Alright Doc,

Old earthers reference the distance stars for evidence of age because earth is the recipient of light from stars, which would take much longer than 6,000 years to travel to earth.

As I understand it, creation scientists do not like to use the argument of maturity (God made Adam a man not an infant, full grown trees, etc.) for light because (as shown in one of your videos) there have been events that have occurred past the 6,000 light year mark (I've got no idea whether my terms are correct) that wouldn't have actually happened had God made all of this light to have reached earth on Day 4. And then there is all of this business about observing time/clocks going slower due to gravity, etc.

My question is more procedural though: How is it or what kind if instruments do we (earthlings) have that measure distance of objects millions of light years away? The only reference I have is radar - send a signal and when the echo comes back you have a distance (yeah, I know, maybe too simple to a fault but work with me Doc.) So how can we send out a signal and receive any return information re: distance when it is not due for another 999,900 years?

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 22, 2010 at 4:42pm: Martin... continued...

For example, we all assume that laws of logic will continue to work in the future – they are invariant. To justify such presuppositions, we will need to rely upon the Christian worldview: God being eternal and upholding the entire universe by the expression of His power ensures that laws of logic will work everywhere and at all times. The Kantian type argument can – at best – justify our use of laws of logic in the past in our local area, but cannot justify the universality and invariant nature of laws of logic, which we all rely upon. Let me further illustrate this by a hypothetical conversation between a Christian (C) and an unbeliever (U).

(C) Only the Christian worldview can account for laws of logic: universal, invariant, exception-less laws that govern correct reasoning.
(U) No, I can account for them without the Christian God. My reason for believing in laws of logic is that without them we couldn’t argue rationally. But we can argue rationally.
(C) Okay, but how do you know laws of logic will continue to work in the future?
[Now the unbeliever is in a jam. If he tries to use the same type of argument as last time, it won’t work this time.]
(U) Same reason: if laws of logic didn’t work in the future, then we couldn’t argue in the future, but we can argue in the future.
(C) How do you know we can argue in the future?
(U) Umm… I guess I don’t know that.
(C) Then why are you continuing to use the laws of logic? By continuing this conversation, you’ve demonstrated that you do believe laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past. But you don’t have a good reason for it on your own worldview – this is arbitrary and irrational. (And it shows that in your heart-of-hearts, you really do know the biblical God.)

Do you see how the Christian worldview ties together laws of logic with uniformity in nature? No non-Christian worldview can do that, yet all non-Christians will accept and act upon the preconditions of intelligibility as they are in the Christian worldview. Furthermore, some worldviews are analytically incompatible with the preconditions of intelligibility – such as materialism, which cannot allow the existence of immaterial laws of logic. I hope this helps.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 22, 2010 at 4:45pm: Hello Martin,

Thanks for the thoughtful questions. In the context of logic and philosophy, "knowledge” is actually defined as: "true, justified belief.” And "justification” (in the same context) means "having a good reason.” People can have true beliefs, but if those beliefs are not justified, it cannot count as knowledge. For example, if I bought a lottery ticket, and said, "I just know this is the winning number”, do I really know that? Clearly not. Just believing in something doesn’t make it knowledge. Suppose I really did end up winning, and said, "Ha! I knew it all along!” Did I really know it all along? Not at all. I had a belief, and it was (by chance) a true belief, but I didn’t have a good reason. It wasn’t justified, and so, it cannot count as knowledge by definition.

So, when I say, "in order for a belief to count as knowledge, a person needs to have a good reason for it,” this is actually true by definition. This is called "analytic truth”: it is necessarily true by virtue of the way the words are defined. The classic example is: "All bachelors are unmarried.” We don’t have to have external ("synthetic”) verification (i.e. we don’t need to find every bachelor in the world and check his marital status); we know the statement is true by definition.

So, is the claim (that people need to have justification in order to have knowledge) itself justified? Yes, it is. We have a good reason to believe it. The reason is that it must be true by virtue of the definition of knowledge. It is an analytically true statement. What about your example of knowing that you are picking apples? Is that something that you actually know? Well, if you have a good reason to believe it (justification) then, yes it is. If not, then no. Perhaps your justification is, "My senses (my eyes and the feeling in my hands) tell me I am picking apples.” In that case, you have a good reason, and so it counts as knowledge (provided that you have a good reason to trust your senses – which the Christian does). It is always irrational to believe something without having any reason for it.

"Any argument made against the preconditions of intelligibility necessarily fails because it would presuppose their validity. As such it is always rational for a person to believe in them as the alternative is a self-stultifying position.” That’s well-stated, and true. And you are in good company. Immanuel Kant argued in exactly the same way. He took each of the preconditions and argued them one-by-one in a transcendental way. I think there is something to such arguments (I gave an example in my book on page 145), and yet, apart from Christianity, they fall short of rationality, because there is no way to "tie together” all the preconditions of intelligibility. Let me illustrate this with the precondition of laws of logic:

I argued in "the Ultimate Proof of Creation” that laws of logic are universal, invariant, immaterial, abstract entities that prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between premises and conclusions. I also argued that only the biblical God can account for this. While it is true that laws of logic must be accepted on the basis that failure to do so prevents any argument from being possible, this line of reasoning cannot justify the properties of laws of logic – that they are universal and invariant, for example. After all, argumentation would still be possible if laws of logic worked only in our limited experience and only in our past. Yet we all presuppose that they also work beyond our experience.

...

Comment by Teresa Beck on April 27, 2010 at 2:56pm: I am SO excited about what looks like very authentic archaeology in the case of Noah's Ark news! The pictures are amazing -- I cannot think of anything else that might be at 13,000 feet on Mt. Ararat! What do you think are the implications of this find being authenticated as Noah's Ark? Based on what's available to the general public, what do you think about the authenticity? I certainly think it could be a dividing line for Christians who stand on the truth of the Word and those who do not.

Comment by Steve Paul Johnson on May 3, 2010 at 6:49am: Dr. Lisle,
Thank you so much for this ministry. You are a great blessing. I have studied Dr. Kent Hivind's material quite a bit and agree with many of his views on the pre-flood world. Have you seen any of his work or read a book by Dr. Walter Brown "In the Beginning" which is very similar to Dr Hovind's model? Personally, I believe a canopy is the only way to explain why people could live to be 900+ years before the flood, and then reduce in lifespan so quickly afterward. You said earlier that it would have been too hot. Dr. Hovind says there may have still been much smaller ice caps. Can't we meet in the middle at around 70-80 degrees?

Also, if the oceans of today are simply "the fountains of the deep", then the evolutionists have a reason to question us as to where and how our model produces all the fossil fuels in one year. You need much more biomass than our current land could have had on it. That goes for coal and oil as far as I know. So if the earth was 70% water before the flood, where did all the coal come from?

Comment by Steve Paul Johnson on May 3, 2010 at 8:29am: Some yes or no questions I'm very interested in knowing.

1. The sun burns billions of tons of fuel every minute. This means it's losing both weight and size. Does this prove that the earth hasn't been rotating around it for billions of years?

2. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Does this prove that the moon isn't millions or billions of years old?

3. The life span of comets is about 10,000 years. Does the fact that we still have comets prove a young universe? What could be a possible source of new comets?

4. The earth's rotation is slowing down. 4.6 billion years ago a day would have been 6 hours and 30 minutes. Does this prove life could not have existed millions of years ago?

5. The gravity of earth is weakening. Does this prove life could not have existed millions of years ago?

6. Stars are blowing up all the time. Is there a way stars could have formed on there own? I've read we see stars forming. Is that theory, or fact?

7. Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate in reverse from the other planets. Does this prove our solar system did not form from a previous supernova or by some other naturalistic method?

A simple yes or no to these questions will satisfy me. If you want to or feel like further explanation is needed, I would be thrilled to hear more on any of these topics. I want to know that the arguments I use in favor of a young earth and universe are sound. Thank you again for your time. God bless!

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on May 3, 2010 at 2:14pm: Hi Martin,

I wanted to briefly answer your other question as well, regarding the claim that mutations can increase information in DNA. I did watch the video on the link you sent. The critic has not demonstrated what he thinks he has and so his argument fails. Basically, the critic is saying that a duplication event (where a segment of DNA gets copied – this does happen sometimes) can be followed by a frame shift (where a single nucleotide base pair is inserted – this also can happen), and that this results in brand new information (which does not happen). We could compare this to the English language, starting with the sentence, "Some dogs are brown.”

A duplication event would then result in the sentences: "Some dogs and brown. Some dogs are brown.” No new information so far. Then a frame shift essentially offsets the letters by the addition of a single letter. So the second sentence now reads: "Tsom edog sar ebrow n.” Does this new sentence contain any meaningful information? No, it’s gibberish. I suppose it is theoretically possible to get a new meaningful sentence this way if the sentences were very simple, but it would be so unlikely as to be essentially impossible in any practical way, particularly for more complex sentences.

Likewise, a frame shift in DNA scrambles the sequence resulting in nonsense. Instead of the proper protein being produced, a random, purposeless assemblage of amino acids is produced. The fact that it results in something doesn’t mean that it has information; since the resulting garbage has no expected action or intended purpose, it will not fall under the definition of information.

In some cases, of course, the loss of information can result in increased survival value. The specific example which the critic picked (bacteria acquiring the ability to digest nylon) is the result of at least one mutation which is known to decrease the information content. (It’s not due to a duplication or frame shift, by the way). We know that information has been lost because the resulting protein has less specified complexity than the original. Its intended purpose is to hydrolyze carboxy esters (which the mutated form can still do), but it has lost its ability to be so selective, and will now hydrolyze a wider variety of oligomers – including nylon. A resulting decrease in specified complexity means a loss of information by definition. The specific expected action has been reduced.

Information is "an encoded symbolic message, containing an expected action and an intended purpose.” It’s not defined as "that which results from a mind”; it’s just that all known cases do come from a mind. Within a cell, the symbolic message is the nucleotide base pairs which code for amino acids, the expected action is a particular protein which does a specific thing, and the purpose is that the cell may survive. Whether or not the machinery actually results in an assemblage of amino acids or not is not actually relevant. The fact that the "software” interprets mutational garbage and produces an amino acid sequence doesn’t necessarily mean that such a sequence has an expected action or intended purpose, and so it doesn’t necessarily count as information.

I think there is some degree of circularity in the definition of information, but it’s still useful (like "survival of the fittest”). No one can show any examples of new information (resulting in new, more specific actions for an intended purpose) arising by chance. When it becomes Dr. Purdom’s turn to answer these questions, she may be able to give a more detailed answer. I hope this helps. God bless.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle on May 3, 2010 at 3:03pm: Hello Scott,

There are actually several different ways by which we can measure the distances to the stars. You are correct that we can use radar for some things in space; the distance to the planet Venus has been measured very precisely by bouncing a radar beam off of its surface and measuring the time of the round trip. This method only works for objects relatively nearby – objects within the solar system.

The distances to the nearest stars can be measured by "parallax.” Parallax is the small apparent shift in a star’s position as seen by the earth as the earth orbits the sun. This is the same way our eyes work. If you hold your finger up at arm’s length, and close one eye, and then open it while closing the other eye, and keep doing this back and forth, your finger will appear to shift relative to the background. Likewise, nearby stars appear to shift back and forth when the earth is on one side of its orbit and then moves to the other side. Using satellite data, we can measure the distance to stars by parallax out to about 2000 light years. Beyond this, the shift in position is too small to be measured accurately. But there are other methods that work at greater distances.

The "standard candle” method (actually a large number of methods all based on the same premise) is widely used. In this method, we take an object of known intrinsic brightness, and measure the apparent brightness. For example, if you saw a candle on a distant hill, it would appear very faint, whereas the same candle would appear quite bright if it were right in front of you. The apparent brightness tells you the distance, as long as you know the true brightness of the candle. There are some stars that have a specific, known, intrinsic brightness. For example, rr lyrae stars always have the same (time-averaged) brightness. So, if you find an rr lyrae stars (they are easy to indentify), you can measure its apparent brightness and calculate its distance. Type Ia supernovae (a particular kind of stellar explosion) are standard candles as well. These can be seen in distant galaxies.

There are other methods as well, such as the moving cluster method, and the main-sequence fitting method. Most of these techniques work over a limited range of distances, but the ranges overlap. So it is always possible to check one system using others. The combination of all these systems is called the "cosmic distance ladder.” All these methods (except radar) are done using telescopes. So, we don’t have to wait for a return trip of a beam; the starlight has already reached earth, and we just use that light to learn the distance to the source. This all falls under the category of operational science – the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be verified in the present.

Comment by Steve Paul Johnson on May 3, 2010 at 6:06pm: Dear Jason,

I just read an interesting article by Robert Newton in the AIG archives on starlight. It says that God created the stars before He created the earth. This is a hard pill to swallow for me since it goes against the obvious reading of scripture. The only thing that helps me consider this as a possibility is the fact that we see stars blowing up that are millions of light years away. If God literally created the stars on day four, then we shouldn't be seeing a supernovae that is over a million light years away.

The only other possibility that I see is if scientists are simply wrong in their understanding of how far away the stars are. Is there any way for all the 10's of thousands of galaxies to be within a 6,000 light year radius of earth? It's the only other way to have the stars created on day four, and then us see a supernovae 6,000 years later. An immediate problem I have with my own question is the fact that stars would have had to begin blowing up the day God made them in order for us to already be seeing the supernovae.

The simple question as to how the light got here is very simple to me though. I have no problem believing that God created the stars with their beam of light already stretched to earth. God made the rest of the earth mature and functioning, there's no reason He couldn't do the same with the stars.

Comment by Martin Smith on May 4, 2010 at 2:01pm: Thanks you for your replies Dr. Lisle, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you answering these questions. Much of what you’ve said has been helpful but I have some follow-up points.

I’m glad to say that I think you overturned my objection based on self-stultifying arguments against your Ultimate Proof argument nicely! I’m still not sure however that the proposition "in order for a belief to count as knowledge, a person needs to have a good reason for it” meets its own criteria. You correctly say that knowledge by definition is "justified true belief”. However there is much debate in philosophy as to whether to be justified in holding a belief you must always provide a supporting reason or proposition for that belief. For example foundationalist epistemologies argue that we have some basic beliefs that are not justified on the basis of other beliefs. Therefore, because, rightly or wrongly, the meaning of ‘justification’ is debatable, the proposition "in order for a belief to count as knowledge, a person needs to have a good reason for it” cannot be an analytic truth for ‘needs to have a good reason’ is not necessarily contained in the concept of ‘justification’ and hence neither in ‘knowledge’. In order to be consistent then, you would still have to provide a reason for holding to this proposition.

As for genetic information, thank you for taking the time to watch that video. Your response was informative but has brought a rather basic question to mind. That is, why does the evolutionist need to meet the challenge of information defined as "an encoded symbolic message, containing an expected action and an intended purpose”? What, in the evolutionary account, requires information of this sort to be produced? To frame the question in another way, is our demanding that evolutionists provide a mechanism for information-producing mutations equivalent to the sceptic of Christianity demanding that we justify our belief in the immorality of abortion without the presupposition that the Biblical God exists? I ask this because surely one of the main features of the evolutionary account is the attempt to explain life without involving notions of intent and purpose.

I’m wary of stealing your time but if I’d like to ask just one additional question. It seems that a global flood is widely disregarded because it is claimed that a flood simply cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record. What do you think is the best creationist model for interpreting the fossil record and what are the best resources to learn about this model (either online or in print)?

God bless

Martin

Comment by Gene Schlabach on May 4, 2010 at 3:46pm: Dear Jason,

"The evolutionists who respond with 'people have evolved a sense of morality because it promotes survival of the species' have committed (at least) two logical fallacies."

I had an evolutionist respond to me with "people have developed reliability of senses because it promotes survival of the species." Is that fallacious as well, and how would you go about answering this objection?

Comment by Matthew on May 4, 2010 at 8:51pm: What practical applications are there to the concept of Creationism?

Comment by Gary Lee Pickard on May 7, 2010 at 8:57pm: Please comment on Psalms 109: 6-13. Thank you

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 1 day ago: Hi Teresa,

No one would be more excited than I would if they found the remains of Noah’s Ark. Sad to say, this latest announcement appears not to be the real deal. We actually have some additional information that is not publicly available yet. For one thing, the carbon dating doesn’t match; two of the three age estimates indicated a date in the hundreds of years, and the remaining one carbon dated to around the flood year (but shouldn’t have). Wood that actually comes from close to the flood year will carbon date about ten times older than the true date, because of the much lesser amount of C-14 in the pre-flood world. So, if this had actually been wood from the Ark, then it should have carbon dated to around 50,000 years.

The Ark may not be on Mt. Ararat, remember, because the Bible indicates that it landed on the mountains (plural) of Ararat (i.e. the "Urartu” region). This includes Ararat of course, but could be any of the surrounding mountains as well. Keep in mind too that Mt. Ararat is a volcanic mountain, and there is reason to think it is mostly post-flood. So, the ark may be buried under a mile of volcanic rock, in which case it will never be found.

If they did ever find Noah’s Ark, the apologetic implications would be much less than people think. Critics can always come up with a rescuing device; they might say that some ancient people went up and built an ark to honor a story in the Bible that never actually happened. Many Christians have the incorrect mindset that unbelievers are objective and would believe in Christianity if only they had "enough evidence.” But we already have a universe full of evidence that confirms Christianity. The Bible tells us that there were even people who saw the resurrected Christ in the flesh and still doubted (Matthew 28:17). So much for "seeing is believing!” The problem is not that people don’t have enough evidence. The problem is that they suppress what they know in their heart-of-hearts to be true (Romans 1:18-20).

Of course, scientifically, it would be very exciting to find the Ark. It would be encouraging for Christians, and we could study it and perhaps learn some of the details that the Bible does not provide.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 1 day ago: Hello Steve,

Thanks for the positive feedback. Yes, we are familiar with both Kent Hovind and Walt Brown. We currently prefer Dr. Baumgardner’s flood model because it matches the Scriptures very well and seems to be the most robust scientifically, having made some specific testable predictions which have now been confirmed. It accounts nicely for the shape of the continents, the mid-Atlantic ridge, the magnetic striping on the ocean floor, etc., something that most other models do not. Also, Dr. Baumgardner is well qualified in the field, having a Ph.D. in geophysics, and his model has passed rigorous peer-review, including that of our own geologist, Dr. Andrew Snelling. Of course, neither Dr. Baumgardner nor AiG consider this model (or any scientific model) to be infallible.

There are a number of different ways to account for the long lifespans of pre-flood people. I wouldn’t totally discount an environmental cause. However, most creationists now believe that the cause may have to do with the genetic bottleneck that took place at the time of the flood; the entire human race was reduced to eight people. This makes it easy for certain traits to get locked in, such as a "short-lived-ness” gene or combination of genes. Remember, Noah lived a full 950 years, even though over one third of those years was after the flood. In other words, he was not affected, which would seem to argue against an environmental cause. However, if Mrs. Noah had genes for short-lived-ness, then the entire human race after her would have too. This would account for why the life-spans dropped off dramatically, while Noah was unaffected.

Again, most (or perhaps all) creationists who are qualified in atmospheric science (such as Dr. Vardiman) have computed that a vapor canopy would have made earth’s surface intolerably hot. Until recently, a few were holding out and arguing that perhaps a very thin canopy would work. However, in order to avoid making the surface temperature too hot, the canopy would have to be so thin that it really can’t do any of the things that it was originally invoked to explain; i.e. the source of the flood waters, protection from cosmic radiation, increasing atmospheric pressure, etc. So, if there was a canopy, it apparently didn’t do anything. It seems to be a model that creates many new problems while solving none.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any scientific or Scriptural support for the idea; the old idea that the "waters above” might be vapor is challenged by the fact that the Bible uses a different Hebrew word for vapor ("’ed”) than for (liquid) water (mayim). Moreover, the "waters above” were not eliminated during the flood year; the Bible speaks of them still existing after the flood (Psalm 148:4). It has been interesting to watch the "evolution” of the canopy model; but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to hold to it today.

The Hebrew words rendered "the great deep” do refer to the ocean. We don’t know for certain what "the fountains of the great deep” are. But it has been suggested that they may be underwater volcanism and the associated tectonic activity that occurred when such fountains were "broken up.” We don’t know that land to ocean ratio was the same today as it was before the flood. It may have been different. Baumgardner’s model allows for that.

The old evolutionist argument that there is too much coal & other fossil fuel for a young earth has been refuted. Schönknecht wrote a technical paper some time ago on that very topic. The amount of coal on Earth is consistent with a one-year flood, particularly when we include the possibility of floating vegetation on the antediluvian earth.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 1 day ago: Hello again Steve,

I’d like to start with a brief caveat because I noticed a lot of your questions ask "does such-and-such prove the biblical timescale.” Phrased this way the answer is always "no” because scientific evidence is never decisive in a worldview dispute. People will interpret evidence according to their pre-existing worldview, and so evidence by itself (no matter how good it seems) is never conclusive in a worldview debate. Not to be too commercial about it, but I do have a book on this topic called "The Ultimate Proof of Creation” which addresses these sorts of issues, and shows how you can settle a worldview dispute. It is indeed possible to logically prove that creation is true, but it cannot be done by the standard sorts of "scientific” arguments that many creationists attempt to use.

That being said, there is certainly evidence that is consistent with biblical creation and is rather difficult (but not impossible) to explain from a secular perspective. And some of the ones you have listed do fall in this category. So please understand my responses in that light.

1. No. The sun is indeed losing mass as it radiates energy into space. However, the sun has so much mass to begin with that its loss is negligible, even on a hypothetical billions-of-years timescale. Earth’s orbit is not significantly affected.

2. Yes. Recession of the moon is a problem for billions of years (not a "proof” however).

3. Yes. Comets can only last 100,000 years or so. Secularists postulate that new comets are constantly coming from a hypothetical "Oort cloud.” The Oort cloud is not detectable, and I have no reason to think such a thing exists.

4. Not necessarily. The earth slows as the moon recedes. They are connected. I’d stick with the lunar recession evidence, which is more straightforward.

5. No. Earth’s gravity is not weakening. Perhaps you are thinking of the Earth’s magnetic field, which is different. The magnetic field is indeed weakening and suggests that the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

6. Probably not. I suspect that new stars do not (and probably cannot) form. Star formation is riddled with theoretical problems. I wouldn’t be absolutely dogmatic though. No, we do not see new stars forming anywhere. Secularists assume star formation is happening, but it’s never been clearly observed.

7. Yes. I think the fact that Venus rotates backwards, and Uranus and Pluto rotate on their sides (a little more than 90 degrees, so "backwards” too in that sense) goes against naturalistic formation scenarios. Naturalistic formation ought to leave all the planets spinning the same way at the same rate with the same axis. But they don’t.

I hope this helps.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 1 day ago: Hi Steve,

No, the Newton article is not saying that stars are created before Earth, at least not from Earth’s point of view. Earth is first, and stars follow on the fourth day. However, Einstein tells us that space and time are not the rigid, inflexible things that most people assume them to be. For phenomena that are "spacelike” (two events in space that are separated by lots of space, and little time, such as two nearly simultaneous lightning strikes), the order of events will depend on reference frame. In other words, if two people have different velocities, one observer will compute that lightning bolt A happened before B, whereas another observer will compute that lightning bolt B happened before A, even if both observers are at the same location. It may sound a little strange to people who are unfamiliar with the topic.

It is clear that from Earth’s perspective, the entire universe was made in the span of 6-days (Exodus 20:11), with the celestial objects being made on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). The article you mention explores how this appears when we shift to different reference frames and different synchrony conventions. It’s sort of like time-zones on Earth. If you live in the U.S.A. and talk on the phone with your friend in England, your clock reads noon, and his reads 5:00. So, are you on the phone at the same time or different times? The answer depends on which synchrony convention we use.

The Newton article was about making sure we are using the correct (biblically-defined) synchrony conventions when we read Scripture. I’m working on writing a technical article on this that will hopefully clarify. A layman’s version will follow in Answers Magazine.

No, I don’t think that astronomers are wrong about the distances. Good operational science (the kind that stems from biblical thinking) has confirmed the distances. The universe really is very big, and this glorifies God. It just isn’t realistic to put one hundred billion galaxies within a sphere 6000 light-years across. Even just our galaxy is 80,000 light years across.

I’ve written on the light-in-transit idea elsewhere, but the bottom line is that this just won’t work for starlight. Yes, mature creation can account for just about any other alleged difficulty that the critics might suggest - but not starlight. There are several reasons for this. To name one, it would mean that events beyond 6000 light years have not actually happened. Instead God had just created beams of light with fictional movies in them. This puts God in the Hollywood business; more 99% of the universe would just be a fictional movie. Yet the Bible suggests that what we see has a high degree of correspondence to reality. I.e., we are not seeing fiction. Better to think that God made the stars to actually give light upon the Earth, perhaps using a way we haven’t yet conceived.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 20 hours ago: Martin continued…

Regarding your follow-up about information in DNA; this is also an example of where we must be careful about definitions. If we accept the definition I provided, then DNA does fit the bill, and certain laws of information apply (such as the law that information so-defined always comes from a mental source). In logic, I am allowed to stipulate a definition for the purpose of conversation; i.e. "by ‘energy’ I mean a force applied over a distance. So defined, I notice certain laws of nature apply; for example, energy is always conserved in an isolated system.” It would be irrational for the critic to respond, "well I don’t like your definition of energy. So, I don’t accept the law of conservation of energy.” The law is there whether the critic likes it or not. He may select a different definition of ‘energy’ but that would be irrelevant to my argument (and thus will not qualify as a rebuttal).

I do think I understand your point though. A critic might try to argue, "then by your definition of information, I deny that DNA has information, because I say that there is no expected action for the proteins, nor any intended purpose.” I think the critic would be perfectly rational in arguing that way (which is why information arguments don’t actually prove creation, though they are consistent with it). However, most evolutionists do recognize that proteins do have an expected action and intended purpose. So the argument will work on them. I hope this clarifies.

With regard to your question about the flood and the order in the fossil record; I’d say the best explanation is the oldest: ecological zonation. Organisms that live lowest tend to be buried lowest. Organisms that live at higher elevations (or are more mobile) tend to be found higher. It’s much more complicated than this of course. But, to first order, that’s the explanation. This is covered in the classic book "The Genesis Flood” by Morris and Whitcomb, as well as in the brand new updated book "Earth’s Catastrophic Past” (Vol I and II) by Andrew Snelling.

Comment by Dr. Jason Lisle 20 hours ago: Hello again Martin,

I’m glad my previous responses were helpful. It looks like we are all up to speed on the definition of knowledge – "true justified belief.” And now it appears that we need to clarify what "justify” means. I should probably begin by pointing out that some words have multiple definitions; when this occurs, context determines which definition we use. For example, in the context of theology, to justify can mean "to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.” But clearly, this isn’t what we mean here. In the context of logic and philosophy, to justify is to "defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded.” This is the dictionary definition. In other words, something is justified if there is a good reason to believe it: it is warranted. (The dictionary definition of ‘warrant’ is: "to give reason or sanction for.”)

Be careful of the fallacy of equivocation. Some people may want to shift of the meaning of a word in a debate to make an invalid point. This may include the word "justified.” In logic, I justify something by showing that I have a good reason to believe it. If I don’t have a good reason to believe it, then it is not justified – by definition.

There may be some people that argue that we should hold to certain primary beliefs without justification. Now I happen to disagree with that position. But putting that aside for the moment and assuming that they are right, are such primary beliefs justified in their worldview? No, they are not – by definition. So, such a debate is not about the word justify – which means to have a reason. Rather, such a debate is about whether we should indeed have a reason for all beliefs. I say, yes we should. Let’s consider the person who says, "no. Some beliefs are so basic that we cannot provide a reason for them, such as X, Y, and Z. These beliefs (X, Y, and Z) are true and we should accept them as true, but we cannot give a reason for them.” Now how would I refute such a position? It’s easy:

I’ll simply ask, "Then why should I believe X, Y, and Z?” If my critic says anything at all, then he is giving me a reason for X, Y, and Z. If his reason is good, then I’ll point out that X, Y, and Z are justified (i.e., there is a good reason to believe them), thereby refuting his position. If his reason is bad, or if he says nothing at all then I will point out that I don’t have to accept X, Y, and Z, thereby refuting his argument that I should accept them as necessarily true.

The Bible tells us that we are supposed to have reasons for things (1 Peter 3:15, Isaiah 1:18). We are not to be arbitrary in our thinking because God isn’t. Any alternative to this biblical presupposition would make knowledge impossible (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3). So, knowledge is (by definition) "true justified belief,” and justification is (by definition) "having a reason.” So do I have a good reason for believing that knowledge is true justified belief? Yes, it is the definition of the word. And that’s a great reason! If you like, you could also say that it follows from the law of identity, which says that a thing is itself.

Remember that justification just means giving a reason. That reason need not be external. Something can be true by internal construction. I have a good reason for believing that "all bachelors are unmarried” without needing external corroboration. The justification comes from the definition of the words. It’s an analytic truth.

Welcome to
Creation Conversations

Sign Up
or Sign In

You can also sign up with:

Resources

SEARCH Creation Conversations

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service