Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Readers respond to Answers magazine, v7 n4.
“That’s what I’m talking about! Science meets creation.”
David S., Facebook
In “The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth,” I am confused by topic eight, “#8 Short-Lived Comets.” Is Danny Faulkner implying that comets are millions of years old but our solar system is just thousands of years old?
Dave C., Jeromesville, Ohio
If the earth is only 6,000 years old, and I have no doubt that it is, why are young-earth scientists talking in the millions of years? Proving the earth millions of years old instead of billions does not prove a young earth to me. Am I missing something?
Richard U., Email
The maximum possible age of short-lived comets, for example, fits nicely if the solar system is only thousands of years old, but it is nowhere near the four-and-a-half billion years required by evolutionary explanations.
Editor’s Response: From the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young (or old) the universe is. However, we can often assign a maximum age to certain phenomena. When we do so, we are not saying that the creation is that old but that it cannot be any older, considering only that one topic. The maximum possible age of short-lived comets, for example, fits nicely if the solar system is only thousands of years old, but it is nowhere near the four-and-a-half billion years required by evolutionary explanations.
We firmly believe the Bible’s historical account of creation, and that the earth and the universe (and therefore comets) are only about 6,000 years old. The purpose of highlighting these ten evidences is not to “prove” creation was only 6,000 years ago but to show that the biblical account is abundantly supported by observational science, while the evolutionary story is unworkable.
I am 16 and I would like to thank you for a wonderful magazine. I learn something new each time. In my little town they are constantly saying evolution is the only possible way things could be. The facts you give in your magazine help me become stronger in my faith and give the truth to those who need it.
Hanna, Fossil, Oregon
In the 10 Evidences article "#3", Dr. David Menton says, “But if creationists are right, dinosaurs died off only 3,000–4,000 years ago.” There are many evidences of dragons in post-flood history. Alexander the Great, Daniel, and even the Roman emperor Cassius reported seeing dragons. The last reported sighting of a dragon that I could find is in 1611; so 300–400 years ago might be a better statement.
Paul R., Yorba Linda, California
Ken Ham argues that the first verse of the Bible reveals that God created time, space, and matter on the first day. I don’t see how this statement can be interpreted to mean that God created those basic elements of our existence on that day. Time, space, and energy should have been all a part of God before he laid the framework of our universe. To say that these things did not exist, although not completely false, I believe is an oversimplification.
Taunya B., Ogden, Utah
Editor’s Response: Clearly, finite humans can’t imagine what eternity outside of time is like. However, what we do understand of the universe indicates that space, matter/energy, and time are interdependent—no one of them can exist without the other two. Exodus 20:11 tells us that in six days God made “heaven and earth and all that is in them,” which includes time, space, and energy. God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2) and “inhabits eternity” (Isaiah 57:15). He is not dependent on time, space, or energy. When God created the universe, He created all three of these entities. That’s the simplest reading of the text and the most likely interpretation. “In the beginning” is a pretty absolute statement.
Dart frogs have a deadly poison, but can their own poison kill them? How do they keep from getting killed by their own poison? Also, when people use the golden dart frog poison to kill animals, doesn’t that poison stay in the killed animal and then cause the person who ate the animal to die as well?
Lee P., Email
Author’s Response: The dart frogs’ batrachotoxin kills animals by binding to gateways in their nerve cells called sodium gated channels, holding them permanently open and destroying the nerve’s ability to function. Dart frogs’ sodium gated channels are configured differently, so the poison does not affect them. Also, cooking the animals killed by poisoned darts destroys the poison, making the meat safe to eat.
The similarities between inlet cones on supersonic jets and the baffles in a falcon’s nostrils are only superficial, despite reports to the contrary. Even at its top speed of 200 miles per hour, the falcon would not encounter the type of shock waves that supersonic jets must deal with.
The purpose of the falcon’s baffles is still debated. One aerospace engineer speculates the design may permit the falcon to continue to breathe easily when turning its head at high speed.
Wind tunnel studies have explored the advantages of the falcon’s body shape and optics but not its nostril design.
Thanks to two aerospace engineers for notifying us about this error in “Peregrine Falcon—Nature’s Top Gun”
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.