In this post, I will answer objections made to Biblical Creationism made by a certain Edgar Wright. I will first post his comment in full then proceed to deal with his questions a line or two at a time.
“Hm. Does Dr Lisle have an explanation for the problem of light from distant stars? We can see events literally billions of years in the past. Is that just more “I think God probably did it to confuse the secularists” rationalizing? What of the age of stars? We know a lot about the lives of stars, since there’s no shortage of them to see. How did they get to their various points in their lives? Can he explain the arrangement of the continents by the movement of plates in any way to make it be a speedy process? Can he account for the rock cycle, the decay of heavy metals, the age and patterns of moon craters, the tidal locking of the moon to the earth’s rotation, the decay ratios of radioactive elements, the salinity of the oceans, the iron bands, the uplift of mountain ranges, the variability and reversals of the magnetic field, the past life of Mars, the Antarctic sediment cores, the deep-mantle microbiota …. on and on and on. Can he explain *anything*? All he can do is pick out a few weak anomalies (“some planets are warmer than others … I can’t account for the cold ones … I think God did it to confuse the secularists”) and then accuse “the secularists” of finding ‘escapes’. Which shows touching faith, but not much sense. His arguments aren’t even superficially good rationalizations, or pseudo-scientific hand-waving. They’re lame to the point of outright delusion.
However, I expect most of the people watching this were convinced that it was all true before they even watched it, and are happy to seize on anything that sounds vaguely scientific as proof of what they are determined to believe. Well … whatever. Nobody’s mind will be changed.”
First comes first,
“Hm. Does Dr Lisle have an explanation for the problem of light from distant stars? We can see events literally billions of years in the past. Is that just more “I think God probably did it to confuse the secularists” rationalizing?”
First of all, although Dr Lisle may not himself have answers to all of your questions but others have dealt on many of these topic extensively.
The Starlight-Time Problem:
Dr Russel Humphreys offers a possible solution to the Starlight-Time Problem which can be found here (www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/).
Dr Lisle’s solution can be found here: (www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention)
The Big Bang theory has its own “Starlight-Time Problem” called the “Horizon Problem.” Dr Jason Lisle has written on the Horizon Problem; one example of such writing can be found here (creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang) See also: (creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang ). In an attempt to solve the Horizon Problem physicists came up with an inflationary model of the Big Bang. Scientists neither know what supposedly began inflation nor what supposedly ended it. In fact, not only does inflation lack observable evidence (www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2194&topic=57), there is substantial evidence against it and the entire Big Bang Theory as well (www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=107&article=52). In addition to the Horizon Problem, the Big Bang cosmology cannot explain why some of the stars furthest away from us appear old. The furthest stars should generally appear much younger than more nearby stars because there has not been enough time for the light emitted by the star when it was old to reach us on earth; we should only be observing the light emitted when it was young. in addition to all that, the Big Bang cosmology must also grapple with the formation of Population III stars. Details concerning this problem can be found here (creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars)
“What of the age of stars?”
Humphreys addresses this also in his article (www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/). In this he explains how relativistic forces could work on the universe such that only 24 hours of time elapsed on the earth (the fourth day of creation) while the rest of the universe experienced hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of years.
“We know a lot about the lives of stars, since there’s no shortage of them to see.”
Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” (Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.) Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, said, “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” He later continues: “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.” (J. Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe. Charles Scribner’s Sons, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, p. 3 and p. 55, 1988.) Let me ask you a question. How much do you know about consciousness? There is no shortage of conscious people for you to see, yet not you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, really understands consciousness; what it is or what it does. Just because we can see the stars, do we neccesarily then know how they formed?
“How did they get to their various points in their lives?”
Again, Dr Russell Humphreys addresses this question in this article: (www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/) and Dr Lisle at (www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention)
“Can he explain the arrangement of the continents by the movement of plates in any way to make it be a speedy process?”
The Bible records that during Noah’s Flood, “…were all the fountains of the great deep broken up…” (Gen 7:11) This implies a surge of tectonic (and by further implication, volcanic) activity. This surge in tectonic activity is enough to account for the arrangement of the continents.
“Can he account for the rock cycle,…”
The Biblical Global Flood provides the volcanic activity for great amounts of igneous rocks, and the tectonic activity for great amounts of metamorphic rocks (produced by pressure and heat) and the sedimentation (erosion and subsequent depositation via water) for great amounts of sedimentary rocks; not to mention that the earth was created with these kinds of rocks. It is only an assumption that these processes demand millions of years of time for their formation. For example, The Grand Canyon like gorge caused by the infamous explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was formed in a single day. In it, particles of sediment were sorted and layered much like the strata in the Grand Canyon. You can easily imagine how much sedimentary rocks would have been formed by a surging global flood that lasted over an entire year.
“Can he account for…the decay of heavy metals,…”
Young Earth Creationism most certainly can. Dive into this (icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf). Here is a question to you, can uniformitism (long age geology) account for Helium retention in Zircons? Details on this problem can be found here (creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics).
“Can he account for…the age and patterns of moon craters,…”
See here: (creation.com/a-biblically-based-cratering-theory) Here is an article that gives a basic outline of the problems with the idea of an old moon (creation.com/moon-madness). In short there are at least four problems with an old moon: recession of the moon from the earth, ghost craters, recently-formed scarps and recent lunar volcanic activity. Further details on these problems can be respectivly found here: (creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night); (creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0401.pdf and creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe); (creation.com/nasa-shrinking-moon and creation.com/young-moon-active-mantle) (creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_1/j17_1_5-6.pdf and creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe).
“Can he account for…the tidal locking of the moon to the earth’s rotation,…”
What is to account for? Why couldn’t the moon have been created tidally locked by the earth? The long agers are the ones who must give an account for both the formation of the moon and its particular orbit. Vouchers for the “Giant Impact Hypotheses” must explain how two dwarf planets can smack into each other and the one have such a round gently receding orbit. In fact, all of the naturalistic moon origin theories have insoluble problems. See here: (http://creation.com/problems-for-giant-impact-origin-of-moon)
“Can he account for…the decay ratios of radioactive elements,…”
See here: (icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf).
“Can he account for…the salinity of the oceans,…”
“For one thing, God probably created the oceans with some saltiness, so that saltwater fish could live comfortably in it. Noah’s Flood would have dissolved large amounts of sodium from land rocks. This would have found its way into the oceans when the Flood waters retreated.” -excerp from (creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth). In fact, if the earth were really as old as some would have us believe then the oceans would be far TOO salty.
“Can he account for…the iron bands,…”
Dr Andrew Snelling addresses the formation of many types of metamorphic rock formations within a young earth creationist timeline here: (creation.com/towards-a-creationist-explanation-of-regional-metamorphism).
“Can he account for…the uplift of mountain ranges,…”
It is only by the assumption that the rate of uplift is constant are long periods of time required. However, there would have been a surge of tectonic activity during the Noahide flood. Most of the uplift of the mountain ranges would have happened during this period. In fact, the rate of uplift is much less than the rate of erosion. North America should have been leveled in 10 million years according to average rates of erosion. See: (creation.com/eroding-ages and creation.com/vanishing-coastlines)
“Can he account for…the variability and reversals of the magnetic field,…”
Take a look at (creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young and creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth and creation.com/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-the-earths-magnetic-field)
“Can he account for…the past life of Mars,…”
Concerning life “found” on Mars, see: (creation.com/life-on-mars and http://creation.com/conclusive-evidence-for-life-from-mars).
“Can he account for…the Antarctic sediment cores,…”
Just think, “Global Flood.” Does that answer your question?
“Can he account for…the deep-mantle microbiota?”
What is there to explain? Why couldn’t God have created such organisms to live down there? Evolutionists are the ones who must give an account for such things.
“…. on and on and on. Can he explain *anything*? All he can do is pick out a few weak anomalies (“some planets are warmer than others … I can’t account for the cold ones … I think God did it to confuse the secularists”) and then accuse “the secularists” of finding ‘escapes’. Which shows touching faith, but not much sense. His arguments aren’t even superficially good rationalizations, or pseudo-scientific hand-waving. They’re lame to the point of outright delusion.”
Paul Taylor of justsixdays.com reponded to this section of the comment well when he said-
“Well, with respect, the fact that you were not aware of Dr. Lisle’s detailed peer-reviewed article means that you are in no position to comment on whether his arguments are good rationalizations or not. You were not even aware that Dr. Lisle’s detailed arguments existed, so how can you judge them?”
Back to Edgar,
“However, I expect most of the people watching this were convinced that it was all true before they even watched it, and are happy to seize on anything that sounds vaguely scientific as proof of what they are determined to believe. Well … whatever. Nobody’s mind will be changed.”
You yourself seem quite determined to believe in evolution. In fact evolution is a belief system akin to religion. It makes unprovable assertions and makes meta-physical statements. The question was never that of religion vs science, but that of which religion is most scientifically accurate, i.e. true. Atheism (evolution), or Biblical Theism (recent special creation). I hope to have shown that Biblical Creationism can give a robust account for all the facts that we observe.
Always, and in all things, let God be glorified.