Description
God asks 87 questions in Job chapters 38-41. Most of these questions are scientific in nature. Let’s paraphrase the first question as, "Did you watch me create the earth so that you know how I did it?"
Description
Think about the many unprovable assumptions which an evolutionist uses in determining the age of a cave. If any of these unproven assumptions are wrong, then the resulting scientific conclusions made by evolutionists are invalid.
Description
If anyone should know the evidence for evolution, it should be Gould. In an article for Discover magazine, he offered three pieces of evidence for evolution. Despite his obvious scientific acumen, his arguments were not only philosophically illogical but contrary to the available evidence and his own writing.
Description
Evolutionists start with countless unproven presuppositions. These unproven starting assumptions require that creation be rejected. Creation is rejected NOT on the basis of scientific conclusions, but on the basis of unproven a priori assumptions.
Pointing out the assumptions of evolutionists is a strong and solid argument, one which should remain strong for decades to come.
Instead of questioning the science of evolution, question the unproven assumptions which direct and constrain that science.
Pointing out the assumptions of evolutionists is a powerful tool in your creation apologetics toolbox. Make good use of this tool. Start with the “no creator” assumption. If needed, also mention the “no flood,” “deep time,” and other assumptions.
Description
Star Trek As a young boy, one of my favorite television shows was Star Trek. I wasted away many hours in front of the television wondering in amazement at what the future could be like. One of the cornerstones of the stories of that science fiction series was the presence of alien species working together for the good of all under the banner of the United Federation of Planets. Through the grand technology of that time and the sharing of knowledge between alien cultures, humanity had almost eliminated violence, war, sickness, and even greed. However, as I grew older I started to realize that there was an irreconcilable difference between the philosophy of Star Trek and the reality that is laid out for us in God’s Word in terms of an evolving humanity and in the chances of finding life elsewhere in the universe.
Description
If we apply Martin’s reasoning to a bicycle, we would say the individual parts of a bicycle were never purposed nor intended to end up making a working bicycle. Obviously, Martin’s argument does not work where design is present.
Amazing Discovery: Seven Planets Orbiting A Red Dwarf
Description
Most Americans mistakenly consider their country’s space agency, NASA, to be an impartial reporter of what they discover. These Americans misunderstand science.
Description
devotion on Psalm 147:4-5 He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them. Our LORD is great, vast in power; His understanding is infinite.
Our Creator God is our Savior God. A God who is full of grace, that undeserved love for every person in the entire world. A God who is full of truth. A God who reveals mysteries to us.
Vegetation, Fish, Sun, Moon, Stars: Were they created directly from nothing, or from previously created material?
Let’s examine the words God uses to describe His creative acts starting with His words describing the creation of people. Note that Genesis chapter 1 often gives a more general description, while Genesis chapter 2 reveals additional details to us.
Evolutionary models are often presented as being accepted by all scientists. A 2017 Scientific American article pulls back the curtain, letting us see that evolutionists debate whether the standard inflationary Big Bang model should be discarded, and some “new idea” found as a replacement. Prestigious evolutionists wrote this quote in Scientific American magazine. Their words echo the creationist claim that some evolutionary models cannot be falsified. See article for the complete quote.
Views expressed in LSI Journal articles are those of the author or editor and not necessarily the view of LSI. Articles published in the LSI Journal have been committee reviewed for accuracy since 2010.