Dr. Lisle joins Joy and Summer and tells us why being a creationist doesn’t make you anti-science. Listen and be encouraged!



  1. Shawn Hare

    Good stuff. I was hoping that, when Dr Lisle was talking about the age of rocks, that someone would’ve asked about the whole radio carbon dating system, what assumptions it’s based upon in order to come up with the deep time “results”.

    • Anna

      Radiocarbon isotopes are only used to date ORGANIC material, honey, to 50,000 years.

      To date minerals–rocks, meteorites–radioisotopes with half lives of billions years are used–such as argon-argon, uranium-thorium, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, or samarium-neodymium, and other methods–such as counting tracks in zircons.

  2. Ken Wolgemuth, Ph.D.

    Hello Joy and Summer,
    On what day did God create the universe? Dr. Lisle makes a strange argument that if animal death happened before the Fall, then Christ’s death on the cross is meaningless. Why does that follow, when it is man who is made in the image of God, not the animals.
    FYI, I am a geochemist and old Earth creationist and a biblical creationist. I believe the Bible is authoritative, infallible, and inerrant. Where is the Bible reference that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Notice that Dr. Lisle gave no evidence that the Earth is young, none. His is a blind faith on his interpretation of Genesis is correct, without taking in the context that Moses was writing for the Israelites 3,500 years ago. The issues were that God is the Creator, He created over a period of time, and he created man in His image, imago dei. Creation itself has abundant evidence that it is ancient. Dr. Lisle has to deny that the stars actually existed because God created light traveling through space of stars that never existed. Dr. Lisle’s designed the Earth and universe to mislead us. Tree rings, Varves, radiocarbon, ice cores, plate tectonics, radiometric dating of igneous minerals all demonstrate that the Earth is ancient. Please get this book and examine the evidence for yourself: “The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?”
    A fellow believer and passionate follower of Jesus Christ,
    Ken Wolgemuth, Founder, Solid Rock Lectures
    Feel free to call me: 918-852-3082

    • CoreKneeLeeUs

      > On what day did God create the universe?
      I don’t tend to use the word “universe” in any way that would allow for such a question to even be meaningful. I use the word to refer to reality as a whole. I think more specifically what you’re asking though is on what day did God create the space-time-material continuum in which we live. Such a question is likewise meaningless. If time is a created thing, then the answer to the question of its origin must be answered by use of transcendent terminology, not terminology that places its creation within its own paradigm by asking questions like “when” or “on what day”.

      You claim to “believe the Bible is authoritative, infallible, and inerrant”, but as many people who like to use those terms, you’ve drained the meaning right out of them. Like Dr. Lisle made so plain, God is plenty capable of writing and preserving scriptures for the benefit of his elect; he is not an incompetent communicator, and the Genesis record is very clear in what it does say even if it does leave us asking some questions we can’t answer about what it doesn’t say.

      You seem to be of the opinion that man’s current interpretations of physical phenomena (general revelation) are clearer and more reliable than God’s special revelation through the scriptures written in human language by humans for humans to read, hear, and understand. Rocks don’t come with little tags on them saying “Hi, I’m 2.3 billion years old.” That’s YOUR interpretation of a rock – part of general revelation – which requires you to go back and reinterpret the not-a-bit-unclear obvious interpretation of the special revelation scriptures. I believe the scriptures speak more clearly and unambiguously than that rock “speaks”. The scriptures were quite obviously created by God for the purpose of communicating to his people. The rock wasn’t created to communicate – it was created to be a rock. As long as you’re going to go reading your history lessons from bare rocks, you might as well use the scriptures to pave your driveway.

      You want to “read” the rocks for your history, but you know very well, unless you’re kidding yourself or haven’t really examined the evidence that the various forms of dating the world with only physical phenomena (rocks, radiometry, geologic formations, astronomy, etc.) will *NOT* give you a consistent, clear answer – “they provide” (to use your anthropomorphic method) widely varying answers to the question of Earth’s age. Either the Earth has to be lots of ages that are many magnitudes of order different from each other (logically impossible), or the rocks “are wrong” (by which of course I mean your assumptions are wrong; the rocks aren’t lying to you; they’re just sitting there – it’s your assumptions that are putting conflicting answers in their “mouths”.)

      The evolutionists who come to various and changing consensuses about the age of the earth from dating methods that “give” (anthropomorphically speaking, again) deep time answers (many dating methods don’t, but are ignored) – they come at a consensus by selectively filtering out results that don’t give them the age they’re looking for and then averaging results that come out in the ballpark they want. I don’t believe rocks, because rocks don’t speak. I don’t believe people who listen to rocks that tell them crazy stories because such people are obviously insane or lying.

      Part of this comes down to asking whether or not you have a biblical anthropology. Do you believe that man is by nature from the womb in rebellion against God and willfully suppressing the truths he’s revealed (Romans 1, etc.)? Do you believe in the noetic effects of the fall? If you do, then there is every reason to doubt both the rational basis and the motives behind what someone says when it goes contrary to what the scriptures reveal.

      You say you’re a geochemist, and yet you’ve really never questioned the unfounded assumptions that underlie radiocarbon dating, tree rings, ice cores, etc.? Come on! Kind of ironic for you to be using a term like “blind faith” of others. How about you be just a little bit more skeptical of your fellow man instead of twisting the scriptures out of all recognition just so you can agree with the unbelievers.

      > Where is the Bible reference that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
      Oh, come on – that’s as lame as the Muslim who asks for the verse where Jesus says in these exact words: “I am God; worship me.” or like the JW who asks you where to find the word “trinity” in the Bible. The Bible is clear that Adam was formed on Day 6, shortly followed by Eve the same day, and tells you he was 130 years old when he fathered Seth, etc. The record continues – you just have to add up the years between generations. No, you’re not going to be able to pinpoint it to 6000 years 12 days and 22 seconds, but 6000 years is a good ballpark figure.

      If your argument isn’t with the generations, but some kind of “a day isn’t really a day” argument, you need to demonstrate why Lisle’s exegesis is wrong and why a day is a day on Day 6 and Day 7, but not on earlier days in the week – yes week; creation week is the pattern and origin of weeks. Weeks are not some celebration of a vague series of unrecorded eras of varying lengths.

      > Notice that Dr. Lisle gave no evidence that the Earth is young, none.
      He’s speaking as a Christian to Christians: giving accurate exegesis of the scriptures *IS* evidence in that context, and of a nature that no other evidence can compare with. If you’re looking for naturalistic evidences, I’ll have to first ask you, “Why?” Is the scriptural testimony not good enough? The second question I’d ask is, “Have you even looked?” It’s not like they’re lacking. But it would require you to take off your deep time glasses [gained through years and years of indoctrination from secular (i.e. godless) sources] through which you currently view the world.

      > Dr. Lisle makes a strange argument that if animal death happened before the Fall, then Christ’s death on the cross is meaningless.
      To be clear, that’s NOT how he phrased it. He said, “If you’ve got fossils before Adam sinned … death is not the penalty for Adam’s sin. … If death is not the penalty for sin, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross?” By linking “sin” to “death” to “cross”, he’s demonstrating that this is a gospel issue, not some minor detail to quibble about while stroking our beards.

      If your view, you have to have a brand new unspoiled creation that God calls “good” and “very good”, except that it’s not really a brand new creation, it’s an old one – far older and existing longer than all the years we humans have walked the earth, and it’s neither unspoiled, nor good, because it’s filled with evidence of death and disease. (Don’t forget there are also fossilized thorns.) It’s a world filled with animals ripping each other limb from limb (contrary to his dietary assignment in Gen 1:30) and dying from cancers and suffering in other ways. In your view, Adam’s sin didn’t change the status quo of the world, only of the human race. But scripture is clear (Romans 8:19-22) that creation was not always subject to “futility” and “slavery to corruption”, but “groans and suffers” as collateral damage to the fall and will one day be set free from corruption.

      > Dr. Lisle has to deny that the stars actually existed because God created light traveling through space of stars that never existed.
      There you go with your assumptions again. Actually, Dr. Lisle doesn’t believe that distant stars never existed, nor does he believe that God merely created light on its way. (I’ll leave you to look up his theory.) But the fact is that, once again, you’re letting your assumptions about physical phenomena dictate what Scripture can and can’t be saying. Light can and does travel at different speeds in different contexts. We know that even from simple terrestrial observations. But when it comes to measuring distances we can never travel and how light travels in deep space where we’ve never been, nor even been able to send probes, or determining how light traveled ages past or how God stretched out the heavens and created the stars – that’s a whole different matter that involves all kinds of assumptions that can only be guessed at, not proven. If you look at the stars and are more convinced of the brilliance of man’s intellect and assumptions he makes concerning them, then I think you’ve missed the point. The stars “tell” us that we are very small and understand so little and that God is God and we are not and that we need him to explain things to us, not for us to tell him what he can and can’t reveal through scripture.

      > without taking in the context that Moses was writing for the Israelites 3,500 years ago. The issues were that God is the Creator, He created over a period of time, and he created man in His image, imago dei.
      Oh, I see – those dumb-as-a-rock bronze-age Israelites wouldn’t have been able to understand deep time like us sophisticated moderns, so God had Mo keep it real simple – just give them a little silly story as a mnemonic, the details of which don’t matter at all as long as they remember the 3 simple points you’ve outlined. Where do you get off treating scripture that way?

      • Carl Unger

        WOW……….your post is so full of holes!!!!

        I will only say this to you, and Dr. Lisle, and to any other person who takes he position that they can draw conclusions about Earth’s age, or any other YEC position (including how an old earth contradicts redemption – which isn’t a biblical point anywhere in the Bible):

        You are less than humble when you believe so much in your personal interpretation of the Bible that it cause you to lose all sense and reason when it comes to what can reasonably found in solid scientific evidence.

        Try looking at some of the solid biblical interpretations that may challenge you, it could represent a real blessing.

        And, by the way, you and the rest of the YEC “crowd” are causing millions to laugh at the Bible……never considering John 3:16 as relevant because you have convinced them the Bible is fiction with your interpretation of the opening verses in Genesis.

        May God have mercy on your soul…..for misleading our youth.

        • Thomas W. Triggs PhD.

          Mr. Unger, your response seems to me to be a bit less than humble as well. It also seems to be what most would call obviously biased and misrepresentative of both Dr. Lisle and CoreKneeLeeus. There is no one I have ever met other than non-Christians who are laughing as your comment suggests about John 3:16. In context there is no misrepresentation of the creation account when mentioning how much God loved the world and made provision for the problem of sin, done by Adam and payed for through Jesus Christ.

          It seems interesting to me that your representation of what is happening to millions who don’t see creation as you do have some great disrespect or soul damaging aspect to their lives and are being misled. If we are being misled by all these theologians who have accepted creation as a fact I would challenge you to prove the big bang (current scientific theory). It is well known that pre-suppositions are often the downfall of faulty hypotheses mainly because they can not be proven. Evolution is unproveable just as Creation is unproveable when one looks at the pre-suppositions of both positions. That does not make it wrong to hold such a position, just different.

          However, when one looks at the scientific evidence that is available, and understands where the Biblical statements fall, they more often than not see (as many who have left the evolutionary position for an acceptance of creation) that the evidence for a YEC position matches up quite well with what the Bible says. All you have to do is do what you want others to do and open your mind a little to see what the evidence really says.

        • Hans Weichselbaum

          Carl Unger – well said!
          Young people are mislead and creationism is one of the main reasons why we Christians are loosing our younger generations.

      • tom

        Bravo! I really enjoyed this response of yours. I would like to read more of you.

  3. Mrs. Lisle (JK)

    Uber glad that you went back and added the comma to the title! 😉

    • Mrs. Lisle (JK)

      P.S. Still needs another comma, though…I’ll let you guess where…

      ROFL 😉

  4. Rebecca

    I don’t think Dr. Lisle did a good job of characterizing the other side of the Christian debate over the exegesis of Genesis. I think Dr. Lennox does a much better job in his book, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.

    P.S. Although I didn’t care for Dr. Lisle’s presentation, I LOVE what you ladies are doing here.

  5. Hubba Hubble

    Dear Sheologians, Why shouldn’t we be embarrassed with Dr. Jason Lisle?

  6. Sarah

    Huge support for Dr Lisle! I’m wondering if anyone criticising him have studied his arguments such as “Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe through Biblical Glasses”, “Ultimate Apologetics” or read any of his contributing chapters and articles in the Answers books and Answers in Genesis website? You should check these out if you haven’t, he handles all the above queries from distant starlight to the issues behind interpreting evidence very well. Please prayerfully consider them in the spirit of the Bereans before berating a very important topic. Most of us who hold to these issues have researched this! I held to old earth and evolution before God through His grace helped me through this issue. If you’re right what do you have to lose in researching? I’m praying for humbleness and willingness to divide the Word of Truth properly. God bless.

    • Luis

      Sarah, may I suggest you prayerfully consider reading John Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis 1” and the Lost World of Adam and Eve”. He is fully committed to reading the face value of the biblical text. I think you will find out that though Dr. Lisle may be a great scientist when he sticks to science, he is misguided in his interpretation of Genesis partly because he does not have the indepth training in the biblical study field (as he does in science) required to wrestle adequately with the word of God written to the Israelites in their ancient time and place (yes God word is for us too, but not written to us). As a result, I personally see in Dr. Lisle view a distorted (though honestly held) view of what God was trying to communicate to the Israelites and God’s message for us. It saddens me to see honest, well intentioned Christians, losing ground in their credibility and continuing propagate weak creation views due primarily to mistaken views on what the bible is trying to say. Despite their otherwise impeccable science credentials, they seriously lose credibility as scientist with some of their logic/thinking biased by trying to force science to support a biblical interpretation view that is misguided.

  7. Lester Cumberbatch

    As a Christian, my view is there is simply some fundamental misunderstandings about the Genesis account by YEC. For instance, in Gen 1 it says, “darkness was upon the face of the waters”..this was before God began any creative order to the world. Where did the water come from? It’s not mentioned in any of the 6 creation days! Water is 75 percent of the earth’s surface and critical to all life, yet Genesis 1 implies it was here already before the 1st day of creation. Let’s start with that!


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

©2021 Sheologians

©2021 Sheologians

Share This