Answers Research Journal was started in 2008 to glorify the Creator by evaluating scientific findings in light of Scripture. The goal is to bring together some of the finest minds in creation research to provide the best possible insights into God’s work since Creation Week. ARJ stands apart as a top-quality, free online journal, which can quickly distribute new findings in creation research, including unlimited space for graphics and color images. Below is a taste of the newest insights you can gain from ARJ at AnswersResearchJournal.org.*
* The views expressed in the Answers Research Journal (ARJ) are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the editors of the ARJ or of Answers in Genesis.
It is common in secular culture to view the biblical history of Adam as a myth or parable. Sadly, many evangelical Christians have accepted this interpretation. Simon Turpin shows that in order to understand Genesis this way we have to sacrifice the clear teaching of the Bible to accommodate an evolutionary view of earth’s history.
The modern view that Adam is a myth ultimately has nothing to do with the ambiguity of Scripture because the Bible clearly views Adam as a historical figure. Instead it is driven by a desire to blend the theory of naturalism with historic Christianity. But Christianity is fundamentally opposed to naturalism. Nonetheless, even Christian theologians often rewrite the Bible to say something it clearly doesn’t mean instead of questioning the supposedly sure results of science.
This is not a side issue. Turpin demonstrates that viewing Adam as a myth severely undermines the doctrines of sin, Christology, and salvation. The historicity of Adam is of vital importance for a coherent understanding not only of the Scriptures but of the gospel.
See “The Importance of an Historical Adam” by Simon Turpin.
Stone Tools Before Man?
In the second half of the nineteenth century flint chips, or eoliths, were found in Paleocene to Pliocene strata that bore typical marks of human processing. However, these tools were rejected as human artifacts because they were found in strata that supposedly predate human beings in the evolutionary timeline.
Decades of research have failed to give a reasonable explanation of how these eoliths could have been formed by geologic processes. Michael Brandt personally examined many specimens in European museums and concludes that many are indeed manmade tools. Brandt supports his conclusions with detailed analysis and numerous illustrations and photographs.
Obviously, the discovery of tools from before the supposed appearance of man on the earth presents major problems for evolutionary theories of mankind’s origin. Brandt also points out a less obvious but equally devastating implication: if these artifacts were indeed millions of years old, human toolmaking technology must have remained stagnant for eons, even though human beings are distinguished by creativity and technological progress over time.
Light Travel Time
If the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible strongly suggests, then how can we see objects that are at distances far greater than a few thousand light years? This light travel time problem is one of the greatest challenges that young-earth creationists face.
A second important point is that, not only were the stars created on Day Four, but their light must have reached earth at that time so they could fulfill their God-given purpose of marking days and seasons for Adam and his descendants.
After a brief overview of seven previously published proposals, Dr. Danny Faulkner, creationist astronomer, lays the groundwork for beginning work on a new solution. Dr. Faulkner sees a parallel between the growth of plants and the propagation of light during Creation Week and suggests a one-time, rapid expansion of space on Day Four.
It is not yet clear whether this suggestion could have testable predictions, but if it is the correct way to look at the problem, it raises the intriguing possibility that we may be seeing much of the universe in something close to real time.
See “A Proposal for a New Solution to the Light Travel Time Problem” by Danny R. Faulkner.