Did God create an appearance of age?

Did God create an appearance of age?

Friday, January 03, 2014

“God Created Things to ‘Look Old'”

Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG-U.S.
October 26, 2010

When dealing with issues about the age of the earth, many people defend the young-earth position by claiming that even though the world is young, God created it to “look old.” In other words, they say, God created the universe with the “appearance of age.”

Scripture states the directive that Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), which means they were formed as adults and not as infants. However, since they were able to have children, these well-intentioned defenders say they must have been “created old.” Some even go so far as to ask the question, “How old do you think Adam was when he was created?”

With this issue, a distinction must be made between an “old” creation and a “mature” creation.

First of all, God obviously created things that were fully functional from the beginning. After all, plants had to be bearing fruit in order to provide sustenance for Adam, Eve, and the animals. He did not just create seeds and wait for them to grow. The created “kinds” had to be capable of reproduction, so they were not created immature. As mentioned, Adam and Eve would have to be able to reproduce in order to fulfill the mandate to be fruitful. This does not imply that these creatures were “created old.” It merely indicates that they were created functional.

Read the rest of this article on AnswersInGenesis.org!

Did sin cause the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Did sin cause the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Thursday, January 02, 2014

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall”

Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use

by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG-U.S.
November 2, 2010

Some Christians state quite categorically that the second law of thermodynamics began at the Fall. After all, it is obvious that things would not “run down” in a perfect environment, right? How could there be disorder in a world that God pronounced “very good”?

There are several important aspects of the second law of thermodynamics that must be considered in discussing this issue. The most commonly cited issue is that of “disorder.” The term used to describe this disorder is entropy.1 The second law states that closed systems tend towards increased entropy—an increase in disorder. Another way to look at this is that the amount of energy available for work in a closed system is decreasing.2 The law allows for increasing the amount of order in a given system, so when applying the law, the system being discussed must be carefully defined.

So if things are “running down,” does it follow that this would not have begun until man sinned and brought about the effects of the Curse? Actually, this statement does not hold up under closer examination.

Read the rest of this article at AnswersInGenesis.org!

Did it rain before the Flood came?

Did it rain before the Flood came?

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

“There Was No Rain Before the Flood”

Arguments Christians Should Not Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG–U.S.
October 19, 2010

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

A Biblical Analysis

Proponents of the “no-rain” view refer to Genesis 2 to support their position. Genesis 2:5–6 states that “the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (emphasis added).

From this passage, all that can really be said is that no rain had fallen up to that time—that is, prior to the creation of man. Remember, Genesis 2 is primarily a detailed recap of Day Six of Creation Week. The passage describes the environment before Adam was created. This mist may have been one of the primary methods that God used to hydrate the dry land He created on Day Three. Furthermore, while this mist was likely the watering source for that vegetation throughout the remainder of Creation Week, the text does not require it to be the only water source after Adam’s creation.

Some argue that this mist eliminated the need for rain until the time of the Flood. However, presence of the mist prior to Adam’s creation does not preclude the existence of or the need for rain after he was created.

Genesis 2:5–6 reveals that before the Sixth Day of Creation Week, God had watered the plants He made with a mist, but had not yet caused rain or created a man to till the ground. To demand that rain didn’t happen until after the Flood from this passage has no more logical support than to claim, from the passage, that no one farmed until after the Flood.

Read the rest of this article at AnswersInGenesis.org!

Does genetic diversity disprove Adam and Eve?

Does genetic diversity disprove Adam and Eve?

Monday, December 30, 2013

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell

Have genetic discoveries broken the tie that binds us to Adam?

Did we all come from Adam and Eve like the Bible clearly states, or has the human species outgrown Adam and Eve? A recent article from The Economist covers the debate about whether all humans could have really come from just two people. It reports that at the November 2013 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Baltimore, Maryland, a presentation about the latest in human genetics showed a packed audience of theologians that human genetic diversity could not be the product of less than 10,000 parents.

The Economist article “All About Adam” correctly points out that without an authentic Adam and Eve in our past, the origin of sin and the need for a Savior—Jesus Christ—would be on shaky ground. While falsely accusing Bible-believing Christians of denying science, the article acknowledges that “much is at stake” in this dispute. What is at stake is the authority of Scripture and the foundation the Bible presents for our salvation.

Are Two Enough?

Claiming that modern genetics has kicked the pegs from beneath any scientific support for the authenticity of Adam and Eve, The Economist states:

A trickier controversy has been triggered by findings from the genome that modern humans, in their genetic diversity, cannot be descended from a single pair of individuals. Rather, there were at least several thousand “first humans”. That challenges the historical existence of Adam and Eve, and has sparked a crisis of conscience among evangelical Christians persuaded by genetic science. This is not an esoteric point, says Michael Cromartie, an evangelical expert at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre, a Washington think-tank: many conservative theologians hold that without a historical Adam, whose sin descended directly to all humanity, there would be no reason for Jesus to come to Earth to redeem man’s Fall.

Read the rest of this article on AnswersInGenesis.org!

Moses and Genesis—a critic responds

Moses and Genesis—a critic responds

Friday, December 20, 2013

23 September 2005

This is a request for a reader, “AM”, to answer a criticism from an antibiblical product of liberal theology, “G”. The Religious Studies departments of secular universities almost always work hard to undermine biblical authority. For example, we have encountered an atheist called Professor Almond, who is head of the Religion Department at the University of Queensland (a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!).

The methodology of liberals is to proclaim premises as conclusions. That is, they claim that their scholarly research has shown that the miraculous events of the Bible did not occur. In reality, their research began with the assumption that miracles do not occur, so it would have been a miracle if they had concluded otherwise.

This time we have a guest response from James Patrick Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries.



I have been having an email debate with well read pluralist for a few months now and I asked him to critique Russell Grigg’s article Did Moses really write Genesis and his reply was well beyond my ability to respond (I am only a recent convert). Is it possible for someone (maybe even Russell Grigg) to help me answer his critique? I have added it below: Hi [AM], I am replying without the history as it becomes too lengthy. First I will reply re the [CMI] article. I found it a bizzare [sic] article, but not surprised.

This “bizarre” article has received warm praise from Orthodox Jewish scholars, but would appear bizarre to those indoctrinated by liberal theology.

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!

Evidence for Mosaic Authorship (Part 2)

Evidence for Mosaic Authorship (Part 2)

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch

Clay tablets

Clay tablets like this were ideal for long-term written records. Far from ‘Flintstones’ clumsiness, these could be held in one hand.
Patriarchal records may have been carried on the Ark, later used by Moses in compiling Genesis (under inspiration).

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

  1. Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Israelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbors kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4
  2. The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.8
  3. The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
  4. Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.
  5. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  6. Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!