I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year. I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts. Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.
It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true. It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming. The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science. Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life. Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA. Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.
This is more of a comment than a question.
In response to the furore over your partnership with the Cincinatti Zoo, I'd like to make the following comment.
Hey, I would like to say keep it up Mr. Ham. I am amazed by your perseverance and especially not losing your temper like so many evolutionists act. It just shows how deeply attached they are to their "science".
Regarding the recent Creation Museam/Cincinnati Zoo controversy: Please do not be disheartened by the comments of the atheists. You do a wonderful work for God which is a great blessing to many people throughout the world, including myself who has had problems regarding faith in the Word of God because of what I am beginning to see as evolutionistic misinformation. It is through your ministry that I am beginning to return to the authority of the Word of God from the very first verse - with the help of the Lord of course.
Let us know what you think.
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Please see my comments below and note that they are said with sincerity and respect.
I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year.
Thanks, I hope it has been challenging you.
I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts.
The reason some people say this is usually that they fail to understand the difference between a fact and an interpretation of a fact. For example, a fact would be that a cow has DNA. An interpretation is that “the cow evolved from a microbe a long time ago when no one was there to observe the process.”
Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.
Science thrives on competing models. So, I’m not certain why this would bother you. It seems strange that of the “no less than three” models, only one of the three models that were listed is given much credence on the AiG website. Perhaps you have confused this with things that you have read elsewhere.
But on the subject of distant starlight, those who often ask this question are rarely aware that in a big bang, they also have a light travel-time problem. The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight get here in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework?
Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.
Although the question of distance has been argued for many years, few today argue along the lines of distance being the only reason for alleged long ages.
The actual relevant equation is:
ds = c x dt
Here, c is the speed of light, which is constant in vacuum (with respect to any observer) according to relativity, ds represents distance, and dt represents time. Many fail to realize that the flow of time is not constant in the universe but can change due to different circumstances, such as velocity frame dilation or the presence of a gravitational field. When the fabric of space is stretched, the differential for time must also change, as c is constant. Interesting that God often stated that He stretched or stretches out the heavens:
The relativistic models are working with this concept. Interestingly, the secular models often appeal to inflation of the universe as a conjecture to try to solve the horizon problem. It is puzzling why we get criticized for discussing the stretching of space, when secular scientists do the same thing.
Another interesting proposal is based on cosmological time zone conventions, which uses an entirely different perspective from the time dilation models. Though the CDK model has problems, even some secular physicists have appealed to a changing speed of light to ameliorate problems with their own models.
But as biblical Christians, we also leave open the possibility for miraculous events, considering this was done during Creation Week. God can create stars on Day 4 and have the light arrive at earth using miraculous means. This is not to be confused with light-created-in-transit, which AiG rejects, as the light we would see if such an idea were true would not actually be from a star and God is not deceptive in any way.
It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true.
Many creationists would argue the same about evolutionists. However, the concepts of “science” and “truth” are really only meaningful in a biblical creation worldview. Apart from the biblical God, what would be the objective basis for such things? Jesus even said:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, emphasis added).
Science, which came out of a Christian worldview, is an excellent methodology that confirms the Bible. For example, the Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from life. We expect this, since all animals today are descended from the originals which were created by God. It is the same with humans. My life came from my parents, who in turn came from their parents, back to the first parents, Adam and Eve. Eve’s life came from Adam, and Adam’s came from God, who is the ultimate life-giving source.
In an evolutionary worldview, life ultimately arose from non-life. This has never been repeated and violates the Law of Biogenesis.
It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.
All evidence is interpreted in light of a person’s worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only creation can.
The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.
Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.
Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life.
DNA does contain information that generates the proteins of organisms and is essential to life. I fail, however, to see how this necessarily supports molecules-to-man evolution.
Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA.
We agree that quantum physics explains the interactions of (subatomic) particles, but what does that have to do with errors in the copies of the DNA during the replication process at the molecular level? Since mutations are allegedly random, they cannot generate the information necessary to drive particles-to-people evolution.
Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.
Since archaeology is the study of the remains/artifacts of peoples and their culture, then are you agreeing with AiG that people have been around throughout the duration of time that the fossil layers have been laid down? Perhaps you mean that geology illustrates your point, though the fossil record is not as supportive of evolution as many seem to think. In fact, creation geologists see quite well that the fossil record (layering and all) is excellent evidence for the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day. Geological layers don’t speak for themselves.
I encourage you to carefully consider the implications of the position you are espousing. Life has never been observed to come from non-life; no one has ever observed millions of years of progress; no one has even observed a single-celled organism, such as a protozoa, evolve into a zebra. When you realize how bankrupt the view of molecules-to-man evolution is, consider the claims in the Bible. An encouraging passage is Jesus’s statement about the joy among angels when people accept his free gift of salvation and repent:
“Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).
It doesn’t matter how many steps in the wrong direction you have taken, it is only one step back to receive Christ as Lord of your life.
With kindness, God bless.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” This DVD features Bill Nye and Ken Ham debating one of the biggest questions concerning the scientific community today.
Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis. In it you will find fascinating content and stunning photographs that present creation and worldview articles along with relevant cultural topics. Each quarterly issue includes a detachable chart, a pullout children’s magazine, a unique animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles, plus bonus content. Why wait? Subscribe today and get a FREE DVD download!