Victory Blog

The Bible is True # 43, Science VS the Bible Part 12, How Old is the Universe? Part 3 - The Length of a Day

What difference does a day make? Materialists know if Genesis is not completely factually true, the Bible is not true. Materialists use the, “Genesis is allegory,” argument to undermine belief in the truth of the Bible; they don’t believe at all there is any truth in the Bible, allegorical, metaphysical or scientific. Materialists don’t really believe the mutually exclusive and separately true argument for both the Bible and materialism either; they believe nothing is co-equally true with scientific materialism. These arguments are just Trojan Horses carrying disbelief into the body of believers. Christians who support allegorical interpretations of Genesis in order to accommodate the materialist theory of creation must accept that not only do they undermine belief in the truth of the Bible, they ultimately support claims that Jesus is untruthful. Jesus affirms the historical accuracy of Genesis, and if Jesus tells even one lie, He is not God.

Read the rest of this post »

Most materialists deny any authority and truth to the Bible, so what’s wrong with materialist scientists and Christians believing the Bible doesn’t contradict the assertion that the universe is billions of years old and life evolved? This position allows materialists and Christians to interpret scientific facts the same way and to reconcile the two worldviews on common ground. Does the Bible really allow Christians to believe God used random chance over billions of years to make His creation and evolution to create all life? Many people claim the language of the Bible is so poetic and ambiguous that it can’t disagree with the materialist theory of creation. Some claim science and the Bible occupy two mutually-exclusive and non-contradictory worldviews, one physical, the other metaphysical, and they co-exist as separate equals without disputing the facts of the other.

Read the rest of this post »

It is necessary for a naturalistically created universe to be very old, else there wouldn’t be enough time for random events to create primordial life or for complex forms of life (everything from plankton to human beings) to evolve. So, evolution depends on a very old universe, never mind that there is never enough time for the universe to randomly create itself and everything in, it including all of us, from absolutely nothing.

Read the rest of this post »

Materialist: The Bible isn’t a current science textbook; it contains no scientific facts, doesn’t scientifically describe events or use scientific terminology.

Christian: The Bible isn’t written in the language of modern science because science wasn’t discovered for thousands of years after the Bible was written.

Read the rest of this post »

To review, the first scientific problem with the multiverse is that the science of our universe is based entirely on the natural laws of our universe. By definition, any other universe in a multiverse could have entirely different natural laws and would have different values for any familiar natural laws; the necessary consequence being that any observations of somewhere else in the multiverse would appear completely senseless to our science. The second scientific problem with the multiverse is that it isn’t scientific, meaning that, as science in our universe cannot be used to observe events outside, before or after our universe, the multiverse is scientifically undiscoverable. So the multiverse is necessarily a metaphysical (religious) belief derived from a materialist worldview. Read the rest of this post »

It is once again time to insert a brief intermission into Science Versus the Bible - Creation, to reintroduce apologetics and present an argument for, or to use the words of Ravi Zacharias, an apologetic for apologetics, and also review sources.

Read the rest of this post »