- God’s Story — It’s Not Liked by Everyone
- But does the evidence back up God’s story?
- For my Christian friends
- About me
The purpose of this site is to put the creation account of the Bible on trial. In specific, as the byline of this site states, we will be “Exploring the evidence for a young earth, for Genesis, and for the flood of Noah.“
The world today claims that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are just a fabrication of man, and that everything around us formed by naturalistic means over billions of years, not by the word of God over a short period of time. Nowhere is it popular or acceptable in Western society today to give the credit for existence to the Creator. But this is exactly what the Bible (the Jewish and Christian Scriptures) claim:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Not naturalistic accidents over lots of purposeless time, but rather God created all things, the heavens and the earth, in six days. (Exodus 20:11) According to the straightforward reading of the chronological genealogies of Genesis, the earth could not be much more than 6,000 years old today. As you well know, this is radically at odds with what almost all of academia and mainstream society says today. The Bible also claims that God once destroyed this earth, because man’s wickedness and violence had grown so great that he would no longer allow it to go on. But it tells us that he spared Noah and his family and representatives of the animal world.
What if the evidence from geology actually fits with a world-wide flood, instead of chronicling eons of slow uniformitarian time? The purpose of this site is to put this evidence on trial. But not just the scientific evidence, we want to test: What does history teach us about how we got to where we are today, and also, what does Scripture actually say on these matters? Is it possible a young earth isn’t actually the necessary reading of the text, as many genuine Christians claim? All of these issues are of course matters that have been discussed in countless places and times. This is my own perspective to add to those, after having been engaged in these matters and questions for much of my life (see a little bit about myself below). I will leave it to you to judge if this adds something of worth or insight, I hope at least a little of both.
God’s Story — It’s Not Liked by Everyone
I am not so naive so as to be unaware that the most reviled and mocked stance of all, beyond just standing for Intelligent Design, is to actually endorse the biblical account of world history. To do so is childish, irrational, unthinking, unbelievable, simplistic, unsophisticated, and yes, unscientific, we are told. If anything invites ridicule, it is that. “You believe the Bible?! Oh… well, I didn’t know you were one of them.” Where did this attitude come from? Is this really just a matter of science? I don’t believe so. I believe the real problem is that man, in his sinful and fallen state (I’m speaking of all of us here), doesn’t naturally like the story that the Bible tells us, because it convicts us as sinners, and so he does the most expected thing: He denies that story is even true. He assigns it a place in the garbage bin. Then he reconstructs an alternative story that will completely replace the story he didn’t like. The story that man has adopted today is one that simply gets rid of the Creator altogether! That’s always one way of dealing with someone you don’t like! Just pretend they don’t exist. Was this currently en vogue story really scientifically discovered, or is the science just a nice justification for it?
So what then is God’s story, the one today’s man doesn’t like so much? First, it was given to us through Moses, a man of the Hebrews to whom God appeared and spoke face to face with, and it was built upon by the ensuing Hebrew prophets, and it was likewise fully endorsed by Jesus the Messiah and by his apostles. The story, in a nutshell, goes something like this:
God created the world beautiful, and he loved man, whom he even made in his own image. This really means he made us as his own children. We were made to look like him, just as a son looks like his father (see Genesis 5:1-3). We were the most special part of his creation, made last of all, the sons and daughters of God, who were made intelligent and able to rule creation with him. The Maker also loved the rest of the creation he made, as it reflected in countless facets God’s beauty and glory, as well as his many characteristics, from the lion’s roar, to the dove’s coo, from the eagle’s fierceness and swift flight, to the grace of the stag. We could go on and on; his creations are innumerable and awesome. But man fell to the temptation of the evil one, a fallen being of rebellion and wickedness. In doing this, man fell from the glory of God, and in his shame, he ran and hid from his Maker. At the same time, rebellion and darkness entered his heart. Ever since then, man has been running, and the Creator has been calling him back to himself. However, there were consequences for his sin, for God had directly forbidden just one thing to the man. By doing this very thing he was strictly forbidden from doing, our Father Adam entered into rebellion against God, and as a result God had to kick him out of the beautiful garden of God. Worse, this meant he had to lose the intimate relationship he originally had with God, who used to walk in the garden with him, talking with him face to face. Now, man would have to eat food by the sweat of his brow, and thorns and thistles would fill the fields where there once was nothing contrary. Woman would give birth through pain and sorrow. Finally, the warning of the Creator would also come true: Man would die, he would return to dust. He could no longer live forever:
Then Yahweh God took the man, and he rested him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and keep it. And Yahweh God commanded the man, saying: “From all the trees of the garden, you may freely eat. But from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17)
This is the world of pain and sorrow we live in today. And in case it seems the Creator was unjust in his assessments of man’s fall and in his punishments, the true nature of the fall of man was quickly seen, when even the first brothers could not live together without the one wickedly murdering the other out of jealousy and anger. Creation was now marred and fallen, enmity entered all relationships, between man and wife, between brother and brother, and between all the animal kingdom as well, on every level. Man had fallen, creation was lost. Soon, cities of darkness rose up, and now the wicked and envious Snake, who had tripped up our ancestors, was worshiped instead of the one and only Maker. Soon their wickedness and violence spread to such an extent, that it was said:
And Yahweh saw that great was the evil of man in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart were only evil, all the time. So Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it pained him to his heart. (Genesis 6:5-6)
Despite all of this sorrow, there was still good news to come! For God promised to send a second Adam, one who was not from the earth this time, but one who had been sent from heaven, and he would restore man back to himself.
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)
This man from heaven was none other than God’s only begotten Son, which the Father was offering up for our sins, just as he had called Abram to offer up his own beloved son, as a prediction of this promise (Genesis 22:1 ff). By becoming a man and succeeding where the first man had failed, he would swallow up death in victory — though at a great cost: The thorns that came into the earth at man’s fall would have to be worn as a crown of torment on his head, and other sufferings were foretold by the prophets (Isaiah 53:1 ff). Finally, to overcome our death sentence, he himself had to taste death, but the grave could not long hold him. All who came to this second Adam was promised a restored fellowship with God, and with it, eternal life:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him, would not be destroyed, but would have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
God was offering man eternal life again. These words were spoken by Jesus, who had to be made like us in every way, seemingly just another son of Adam, but who John testified was the very Word of God who had been with God in the beginning. “And the Word became flesh, and he pitched his tent amongst us…” sent from the Father, full of grace and truth, come as a second Adam, to undo the sin of the first Adam.
I cannot give more of this story now, but you can get the full account, beyond my own feeble retelling of it, by reading it for yourself, starting with the first 11 chapters of the Bible and forward. I wanted to tell this condensed version of God’s story, because we must understand just what it is the world is rejecting: God’s own story of the world’s history, which is a story from first to last about God’s attempt to reclaim lost man. Fallen man today has attempted to preempt this story of God by replacing it with their own story of cosmic history, which conveniently removed the Creator and any need for him entirely from the scene.
The old-earth eons are essential to this end. A recent creation puts us very close to the Creator and to his original creative deeds; it means only very recently did all of the wonders of the universe get designed by him. This simply will not do if one wants to replace the biblical story, it’s far too uncomfortably likened to it’s claims. So James Hutton and Charles Lyell (and other Enlightenment men before them) sought to put the beginning as far back into the inconceivable past as possible, so far back that Hutton could famously state that there was “no vestige of a beginning.” Lyell himself astutely avoided even talking about the initial beginning, sort of like evolutionists today mostly avoid the issue of biogenesis, but in his private letters, you can find him continuing to talk about the origins of all things in a purely naturalistic way. Even atheist Stephen J. Gould admitted that Hutton’s main ideas were developed with virtually no empirical evidence … they came from an Enlightenment philosophical outlook, and he only added the scientific proofs afterwards. Lastly, the following point should be blatantly evident, though it is rarely stated: Without the old-earth eons, evolution of “the species” is utterly impossible. So why is God’s story from Scripture so radically different from the old-earth origin’s account that is popular today? Is it because science just proved this? No, it seems clear that many leading men didn’t like the biblical story of our origins, and so they came up with their own version, one which purposefully was designed to remove the Creator from the scene. The old-earth eons part of this is essential to their alternative history.
But does the evidence back up God’s story?
On the day Jesus Christ was crucified, he testified to the Roman governor, where he claimed his chief purpose for coming to the world was to testify to the truth:
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς.
Then Pilate said to him: “So you are a king then?!” Jesus answered him: “You say that I am a king. It was for this very thing that I was born, and it was for this that I came into the world: To testify to the truth. All those who are of the truth hear my voice.” (John 18:37)
If we hear the truth, are we willing to listen and believe? On the flip side of the coin, you might legitimately ask: But what if all the evidence does in fact stand against the veracity of God’s story? Let me admit to you who are either agnostics, atheists, or unbelievers, that I would be one of you if in fact the God of Moses, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Genesis, were found to have put forth a basically bogus creation narrative, one that conflicts with all the evidence, and if the historical record these prophets gave us were not found to be reliable and true. Contrary to the frequent claims of some opponents, many of us biblical creationists believe strongly that the evidence is very important, and we would admit that if the wide-scale evidence strongly condemned the historical truth claims of Scripture, starting with its origins claims, that we would be in very big trouble.
“To give an idea of the magnitude of the error, to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, given that we know the world is actually 4.6 billion years old, it’s equivalent to believing that the width of North America … is less than 10 yards. And that’s the scale of the error we’re talking about. So you’ve either got to be staggeringly ignorant, which most of them are, or if you’re not ignorant, you’ve got to be … insane. … Sometimes they were even told things like: Don’t believe when people bring something they call evidence, faith is more important than evidence.”
That is not to say I have an answer to every problem and to every question, certainly not! But the materialistic (matter is all there is) paradigm has far greater problems to face than anything we do (take biogenesis for example). So the question is not “who can answer every single difficulty,” but rather: “which side is most consistent with the evidence?” I unabashedly admit that my position requires faith, and I also admit I am vulnerable to doubts just like anyone else. At the same time, in answer to that last question, I strongly believe our position is far more consistent with the evidence, contrary to Dawkins’ portrayal above. While the Enlightenment movement spurned the idea of supernatural and biblical revelation, and exalted in its place human reason, I urge you, if you currently adopt such a position, to spurn that rebellious, anti-God path, and to instead listen to what God spoke in days of old through his prophets and wise men. “The fear of Yahweh (the LORD) is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7) These men claimed to have seen God with their own eyes (Exod. 24:10-11), and heard him with their own ears (Gen. 15:1), and some even physically wrestled with him (Gen. 32:24-32). And yes, their account of earth history is radically different from today’s naturalistic origins myth. Is it a valid option to believe the origins testimony of those ancient prophets instead? Is that outdated? Is that foolish and irrational? I submit to you that while this still takes faith, that nonetheless evidence for a young earth (Genesis 1-5) and for a world-wide flood (Genesis 6-9) is abundant, and this corroborates their claims. Beyond this, if there really was a God who could just speak a word, and out would come, in a day’s time, millions of new creatures, how great and beyond description or imagination would that Being be? The evidence from biology is daily confirming the magnificence of this one true God, and the absurdity of supposing that any naturalistic means can create any life-forms. I hope you will consider that evidence carefully. Just maybe God is closer to us than we ever thought or imagined? (Acts 17:25-30)
For my Christian friends
Are you a Christian who believes in an old-earth, if not also in some form of theistic evolution? If so, I want you to know that I fully understand that such positions are often adopted with a good motive, which is to remove scientific objections to our commonly held faith. Even so, I hope you will consider that evidence from 1) science, from 2) history, and from 3) Scripture shows that this compromise is needless, it’s dangerous, and that in the end it’s wreckless.
A Needless Compromise — Science Supports A Young Earth and the Flood of Noah Anyway
It’s Needless, because abundant evidence points to a young earth. Likewise, abundant scientific evidence shows that a recent and utterly catastrophic world-wide flood is the true source of the geologic record. It shows that a recent world-wide deluge accounts for the main features of the earth we see today, not millions of years of slow, uniformitarian, geologic eons.
A Dangerous Compromise — History Shows these Views were a Humanistic Attempt to Remove God from the World
It’s Dangerous, because these theories were fabricated in the first place in order to remove the biblical God from the world! Not all compromises are created equal! So this is an extremely dangerous compromise. You need only look to Western society today, whose schools and public squares demand God have no mention or place. How do you think that came about? Do you really think evolution, as well as the old-earth eons it is founded upon, where no creator is ultimately needed, has nothing to do with this state of affairs? And if so, please tell me why the same people fight so strongly against even the minimal claims of intelligent design? Speaking of the fruits of these ideas, we need to also consider the communist, Marxist states of the last century, which rested firmly on an evolutionary, old-earth, God is not here and never was ideology. These states banned belief in God, they viciously wiped out Christians and anyone else of faith, and in the end they enslaved or murdered hundreds of millions of mankind. I am not saying all atheists are bad people, nor am I claiming that “Christians” have never committed atrocities. But I would like you to consider, first of all, the real fruits of these materialistic ideas. Is it any wonder that when you remove God’s hand from world history and from its creation, that you end up with a wicked and godless world?
While it is true that there have always been genuine Christian leaders and scientists who compromised with old-earth views, the chief founders of these ideas, the ones who ruled the day in the end, particularly Hutton and Lyell, were anti-Christian deists. It’s important to understand that the Enlightenment deists strongly denied Christian claims on biblical revelation, and many of them mocked Scripture. So deists of the day were not just intelligent design advocates, which seems to be what a lot of Christians seem to think today. Rather, the hallmark of deism was the rejection of the supernatural, and of Christian biblical revelation in particular. In place of revelation they exalted human reason. This all lead in the end to humanistic rationalism and a rejection of biblical faith entirely. The historical undergirdings of this worldview were the geological earth-histories of James Hutton and Charles Lyell. The fruits of Lyell’s writings were made immediately evident, as his earth-history, one which purposely supplanted the biblical earth-history, strongly influenced Lyell’s younger contemporary and in a sense apprentice: Charles Darwin.
But let’s not forget: These godless men were preceded by centuries of devote Christian scientists of excellence. Most of the pioneers of science were young earth, flood endorsing Christians, from the father of geology himself, Nicolas Steno, to Sir Isaac Newton. There is no conflict between “science and religion,” a phrase we’ve had to hear ad nauseam, but rather the conflict is between godless, anti-Christian materialism, with the worldview of the Bible. Lastly, on this compromise:
A Wreckless Compromise — It Contradicts Scripture in Letter as well as in Spirit
It’s wreckless, because it does violence to the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures. The writings of the Hebrew prophets betray not a single inkling of a thought of such old-earth eons. Even from a purely secular point of view, this is an obvious and blatant case of reading a popular cultural view into a text that not only knew nothing of that idea, but worse, which supported a quite opposite notion on how the heavens and the earth were made, namely: Supernaturally and speedily, in only six days, and by the voice of the Almighty. The only problem the ancient believers seemed to have in former times was why did God need to take any time at all to do this. They were worried that even taking 6 days was perhaps limiting the power of God, that was the concern of some early Jewish theologians (like Philo of Alexandria) and of some of the early church fathers. Some of those men compromised in that day and said that the six days therefore must have really just meant something allegorical, that in fact it was all done in a moment. Now we can see how this was just a case of altering the text in order to make it conform to popular views of the day. But today’s compromise of conforming Scripture to old-earth eons is far more wreckless! Because this attempt does not just do violence to the text in letter (i.e. to the “literal” sense of the text), but beyond that it utterly violates the spirit of the text of Genesis by turning creation into a hellish account of endless eons of death and sorrow, of pain and of sadness, even though no sin had been committed. So many Christians just want to adopt the old earth years for rocks and dumb dirt and stars, and thereby think that they aren’t adopting evolution. But it eludes them, mostly because they’ve never thought long on the problem, that the fossils in those rock layers must have an explanation! If those rock layers are a hundred million years old, then so must be the animals who perished and were buried there. But as we’ve seen, this compromise is needless, because these animals were clearly buried in the flood, in a grand, year long world catastrophe.
By the way, my name is Nicholas Petersen, how do you do. I’ve been interested in science, in the evidence for the Flood and for Creation, and in the evidence against evolution, ever since I was in Jr. High School, when I was strongly confronted with these origins issues (though my love of dinosaurs goes back to Kindergarten years). You can see a little bit more about me at another site of mine, hebrewcosmology.com. I made this website — creationontrial.com — in order to put forth what I believe are some hard-hitting, and yet “in a nutshell” type evidences, that demonstrate points addressed above.
At this point I would like to register my hearty approval of the following statement that is listed on the Logos Research Associates about page. Though I am not a part of this association, I love how this statement was worded. I particularly want to emphasize what was said concerning my own fallibility. I do indeed urge you not to put your faith in me. Putting one’s faith in man may be the biggest problem with regard to this origins issue, at least as far as the church is concerned:
As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Gospel – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
There are many terrific creationist organizations and websites out there which I depend thoroughly upon: http://creation.com/, http://www.icr.org/, https://answersingenesis.org/, https://creationresearch.org/, and others as well. I deeply appreciate having gotten to fellowship over the years with some of the individuals who are part of these organizations. I hope the contributions I and others make on this site may add a little something which will be of value as well.
Jonathan Sarfati shows how even in the case of the resurrection of Christ, “blind faith” was not being asked for. Was it faith still? Yes. But not blind faith, because they had ample evidence to support this belief: “some … critics claim that the ‘doubting Thomas’ passage (John 20:24-31) promotes a blind faith. In reality, Thomas’s problem was rejection of ample evidence—the testimony of at least 11 men whom he had gotten to know intimately over at least the past three years, plus personal experience of the miraculous powers of Jesus, including raising Lazarus from the dead and even an empty tomb.” ↩
Consider A. E. Wilder Smith’s words on this (16:59):
Question: But doesn’t that work the other way around. Isn’t the belief first, and the reasoning afterward?
Wilder Smith: I think they both go together, I think they’re dialectical. I don’t think that you suddenly come to a perfect faith. I think that you take the first step in trusting a fact that you find out, and the fact that I found out was that Christ died for my sins. And having trusted that, then other facts turn up which I can trust too. Faith is not a blind matter, there are certain matters in which I have to have faith because I can’t see. But in the matters where I can see, then it needs to be reasonable, otherwise I can’t believe it. ↩