John K Reed and Shaun Doyle examine how the church’s 1,800-year consensus on a young earth was overturned by secular deep time concepts.
Can Christians accept an old earth? Logic shows deep time fits naturalism, not Christianity, creating fundamental conflicts. Shaun Doyle and John K Reed explore this.
Why reject biblical creation? A Scottish encounter reveals ignorance keeping people from God’s truth about origins.
Scientific certainty versus Scripture: Why “deep time” acceptance leads to biblical rejection. Software engineer Ari Takku’s transformation.
Congo’s hero shrew has an incredible spine that supports human weight but stays flexible. Scientists can’t explain how such engineering evolved naturally.
Why did the Creator walk in sandals? Explore how Jesus’ incarnation reshapes our view of humility, leadership, and God’s closeness to humanity.
Did Jesus believe in a young earth? Dr Carl Wieland and Dr Jonathan Sarfati examine claims that Christ was mistaken about science.
Why does science work? The field flourished under Christianity, not by accident. The foundations of scientific pursuits find their roots in biblical principles.
If nature inspires good design, could it be designed itself? This reflection on creativity and inspiration poses a deeper challenge.
Fresh wood and detectable carbon-14 in diamonds challenge claims of deep time, pointing instead to a much younger age consistent with the biblical timeline.
Darwin opposed human slavery but viewed it as natural in other species—exploring this contradiction and the true motives behind his evolutionary theory.
Folded rocks may look old, but evidence suggests they formed fast during the Flood—supporting the Bible over deep time.
Darwin rejected Genesis, miracles, and future judgment, but were his doubts based on evidence or emotion? Russell Grigg examines the flaws in his reasoning and worldview.
Polystrate fossils cut through rock layers, challenging deep time. Do they reveal a global flood? Paul Price examines the evidence geologists avoid.
Chesterton critiqued Darwinism for its speculative claims, moral dangers, and denial of miracles, offering a freer Christian worldview in response.
Skeptics try to stump us by citing passages in the Bible about God killing, but the Bible clearly presents God’s big picture plan for human beings.
Many people erroneously think that Charles Darwin was once blissfully content with the biblical explanation of origins. The truth is significantly otherwise.
The foundation of Christmas begins in Genesis, where sin and death entered the world, showing why we need the Savior born in Bethlehem—Jesus Christ.
Is Christmas pagan? Historical and biblical evidence says no. Dr Jonathan Sarfati reveals its roots in Christian liberty and Jewish traditions, celebrating Christ’s birth.
The origin of life reveals a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma for naturalism. Dr Batten examines why life’s complexity points to the need for an intelligent Creator.
Max Brewster
Sorry to say this, but this episode was terrible, and unfortunately it's not the only one of its kind. It's bad enough to use a computer voice droning on and on monotonously, rather than have an actual human read out the article. But the article is filled with technical terms that are not explained. Like what does "epistemological positivism" even mean? If you want to get your message across, make sure it is engaging and understandable.
Max Brewster
Another great podcast! I love how you guys expose the illogical thinking of Peta and other evolution-based organisations.
Bryan/DexCaliber
there is not an episode that gets past me Creation.com helps in making sense in evolutionary chaos.👍❤️✝️ Owls are my favorite bird. This is a fantastic episode👍
Max Brewster
"Since Charles Darwin published his "Origin of species" in 1959..." 1959? Come on guys, I know this is just a typo and you do know it's supposed to be 1859, so why aren't you checking each other's work before putting it out there? Anticreationists will question your intelligence and ability to comment on origins issues if you don't get basic facts right.
Max Brewster
"the land of the third river... "? You mean the NAME of the third river. Lots of little mistakes like this suggest a second person should check the first person's work before proceeding.