Our Websites

What is Truth?

I recently received a question in one of our online communities regarding the lack of credit given to creation by the majority of scientists.

Doesn’t it follow that we also shouldn’t accept your arguments? After all, the views of CSE aren’t accepted by authorities in biology, geology, history, anthropology, or physics.

I beg to differ. There are hundreds—even thousands—of scientists who accept the biblical worldview and see it in no way contrary to real science. In Six Days responds to the late Stephen Gould’s assertion that no legitimate scientist believes in the Genesis account of creation. Gould’s entire argument is a red haring. Truth is never decided by “majority opinion.”

Truth

Truth is not relative nor is it subjective. Truth is that which conforms to reality as perceived by God. The good news is that you can come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8: 32)! All you have to do is continue in God’s word (v. 31). Here is a quick video to explain “truth.”

Search the Scriptures

The very idea of truth implies a standard. The fact that something can be false logically leads to the idea that there is some standard of truth. Jesus declares that He is the standard of truth. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” (John 14:6). Search the Scriptures and know the truth for yourself.

,

Leave59 Responses to testWhat is Truth?

  1. andrew Ryan November 5, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    Ken: “Geno, local floods do not account for the global mass extinction event evidenced by fossils.”

    Neither does one big flood account for it either. Unless it lasted several decades.

    If the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in some areas is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited.

    Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made such burrows need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.

  2. Jon Richt November 5, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Hi Mark (James). You wrote the following to me: Any truth that is subject to our knowledge is not truth at all.

    Then there are no truths.

    We can not be aware of a truth without it being filtered through our perceptions. Truths (the ones we talk about) are known by us. While it’s true that there are unknown truths, once we know them, they too will be similarly filtered.

    This is why you can’t separate fact (aka. truth) and perception. They’re not the same thing, but they can’t be pulled apart either. “Green” exists only so far as we have a word for the wavelengths of light we’re able to perceive, and only so far as people are able to understand that word, and only if they can actually experience the phenomenon.

    @Kenneth Tyner: first off, thanks for giving me something new to look up and read about. Second, it looks like you’ve mistaken extromission theory for intromission theory. The former has generally been rejected while the latter (Intromission) is generally accepted by modern science.

  3. Geno Castagnoli November 5, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    Geno,
    When I ask you direct questions you are strapped for time (to answer me anyway, not to comment to others),
    #####
    Geno answers:
    With the exception of my post to “Ant” (who seemed to think I had been offended by his comments), none of my recent posts have taken more than a few minutes. This one will take a bit longer.
    #####

    Stephen said:
    yet if I’m not writing specifically to you, you’ve got plenty of time to comment on my stuff. I’m just sayin’….
    #####
    Geno points out:
    There’s a difference between a post that takes a couple minutes and one that takes an hour or more. I’m just sayin’ ….
    #####

    Stephen previously claimed:
    “When creationist point out that both creation and evolution are both religious, it is not so you will chose one over the other… it is to simply show that evolution is not proven scientifically of factually,”
    —–
    Geno previously responded:
    It isn’t? According to who?
    ——
    Stephen counters:
    Okay, without using ANY unverifiable assumptions, prove any ONE of the following; Feel free to contact any scientist you wish if you need help… it’s an open book test!
    #####
    Geno points out:
    You seem to be real good at giving “tests”. You want to answer a question with a question. That isn’t how it works. How about an answer to my question? Here it is again:
    WHO says evolution is a religion rather than a valid scientific theory?

    We already know the answer to that one, don’t we? It is amost entirely a small group whose primary objection to evolution is that it conflicts with their religious views. These are people who have taken a decidedly ANTI-science stand that their minds are made up before they even examine the evidence and who openly declare ANY evidence in conflict with (their literal interpretation of) the Bible is invalid…. by definition.

    Further, let me point out, you have your own set of “unverifiable assumptions.” It’s more a matter of whether or not the assumptions are reasonable than it is they be verifiable. EVERYTHING we know (or think we know) is based on some kind of “unverifiable assumption.”

    You asked I me to “prove any ONE of the following.” With the understanding that proof is for mathematics and alcohol, I will respond to those that are most relevant with regard to my rejection of YEC…. with my evidence (not “proof”).
    #####

    Stephen:
    1. The earth is more than 10,000 years old
    #####
    Geno responds:
    Since YEC holds the Earth is older than the stars, all I need do is show the stars are more than 10,000 years old. This is easily done because we can actually SEE stars more than 10,000 light years from Earth. The speed of light can be verified by observing the decay rates of radioisotopes observed in spectra of distant stars. (Google my name and Sn1987a for my paper on this.)

    Further, there is radiometric dating (discussed below).
    #####

    Stephen:
    2. Radiometric dating is accurate
    Geno responds:
    Radiometric dating is hardly perfect. However, when properly used, it does provide statistically reliable results.

    There are over a dozen radiometric isotopes used for dating. Some of these isotopes do not depend on the ratio of daughter product when the “clock” starts and some can be cross checked using isochrons. There is no known mechanism (short of a nuclear chain reaction which leaves its own evidence) that will significantly change decay rates. The method has been validated and cross checked by tens of thousands of blind tests over the last 60 years.
    #####

    Stephen:
    3. Life came from non-living matter without God
    #####
    Geno comments:
    You’ll need to take that up with an atheist. Besides biology isn’t my “thing”… despite the fact I taught high school biology for 5 years, I’ve never taken a biology class in my life. I’m far more interested in physics and physics causes a hellofalot more trouble for YEC than evolution ever did.
    #####

    Stephen:
    4. You and a rutabaga share a common ancestor
    #####
    Geno comments;
    See #3.
    #####

    Stephen:
    5. Stars can still form
    ####
    Geno comments:
    Why not? Has the physics of star formation somehow changed, or is this the Hovind claim that there are millions of stars (on average) forming every day and we haven’t actually seen one form yet?

    (Hint: The reason we haven’t seen a star form is we shouldn’t EXPECT to see one form. Keep in mind there are galaxies we know about only because we’ve gotten 3 or 4 photons from the entire galaxy in a period of a couple weeks. Based on the size of the universe and the number of stars we can see with existing technology we should expect to see only one star form in 4,000 or so years…. IF we are looking in the right direction. Besides, the period of rapid star formation is long over.)
    ####

    Stephen:
    6. The Big Bad Bang happened
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Even YEC agree the universe is now much larger than it once was. Whether or not the BB ever happened, the evidence of an ancient universe is still there. The BB could be absolutely, totally, completely false and YEC STILL have to deal with our ability to directly oberve a galaxy more than 2 million light years from Earth by simply walking outside and looking at the northern sky with our unaided eyes.

    Stephen:
    7. Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 6:10
    #####
    Geno responds:
    I suspect it was more a matter that Jesus didn’t want to confuse His audience. After all, they had germs back then and germs aren’t “male and female.”
    #####

    Stephen:
    Somethin’ tells me you won’t try #4… : )
    #####
    Geno replies:
    Right. Biology simply isn’t my “thing.” Besides, you have more than you can handle with the physics.

  4. Geno Castagnoli November 5, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:
    Geno, local floods do not account for the global mass extinction event evidenced by fossils.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    There have been at least five global mass extinctions evidenced by fossils. Besides, who says floods are the only mechanism that can cause an extinction?
    #####

    Kenneth wrote:
    Local floods do not account for marine fossils found atop mountains around the world.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    But plate tectonics does.
    #####

    Kenneth wrote:
    Local floods do not account for polystrate fossils running through multiple layers of strata.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    That was dealt with by standard geology over a hundred years ago.
    #####

    Kenneth claims:
    The only account of flooding consistent with the observable evidence is a global flooding.
    #####
    Geno concludes:
    Well, the observable evidence is there has been more than one global extinction and we can measure the movement of continents so it seems you are wrong.

    Now, back to my original claim (which you did NOT address):
    Every creation “science” model for a global flood would cook every living thing on the planet. That includes a vapor canopy (Vardiman at ICR says this would cause a greenhouse effect leading to temperatures over the boiling point of water); Baumgardner’s “Runaway Subduction” (The energy Baumgardner says would be released is enough to boil every drop of water on the planet 3 times.); and Brown’s “Hydroplate Theory” releases 1000x the energy of Baumgardner’s idea.

    In short, a scientific flood “model” that sterilizes the planet doesn’t work.

  5. Kenneth Tyner November 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Jon said:

    @Kenneth Tyner: first off, thanks for giving me something new to look up and read about. Second, it looks like you’ve mistaken extromission theory for intromission theory. The former has generally been rejected while the latter (Intromission) is generally accepted by modern science.

    My reply: Jon, I am not confusing the two. The intromission theory of vision was the argument against the “emission” theory, where it was claimed that light beams were emitted from the eyes. The counter argument “intromission theory” was that light entered the eyes. These theories are over a thousand years old and have never been challenged.
    Newtons inverse square law showed how light scattered from its source. Further tests conducted in the early 20th century confirmed that light scatters. The intromission theory of vision requires the convergence of light, contrary to the scattering of light and is therefore falsified.
    My theory is that our eyes work like mirrors which reflect an image. This is supported by our vision of stars in the night sky, in which the light from stars would never reach the earth, due to scattering and entropy.
    Furthermore, considering all the individual objects we observe at one time, the vast amount of light required to converge in our eyes, and individually in both eyes, is too great a volume for the eyes to discern one object from the other.
    Also, you need to consider an image from a dot matrix printer, composed of individual dots. Remove most of the dots and the image is lost. You are only left with scattered dots. Therefore, the eyes could not reproduce any specific image, much less the volume of images we observe at a single instance in time.

  6. Stephen Holshouser November 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Jay,

    Regarding the supposed descepency about the time of Jesus’ birth in Luke;
    Luke actually uses the word “hegemon” which is a broader term than the word for the official governor, “legatus.” So, Luke could be refering to Quirinius being in charge of the census as a procurator or ruling officer, and not the official governor at that time.

    “how do we know that Mary was a virgin… ?”

    Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God; Mary would not have watched her son be tortured and crucified if she knew otherwise. This puzzled her at first, too, when the angel told her she would have a son… she asked, “How can this be, seeing I know not a man?”

    You can believe the other prophecies recorded by the disciples / apostles because they spent their lives and/or died for these truths. You seem to be ignoring a great reason to believe that I’ll point out again;
    “God’s proof to YOU that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead [or any other fulfilled prophecy they mention] was that the disciples, who had just forsaken Him for fear of their lives a few days before He rose, gave their lives after personally, physically meeting with the resurrected Son of God. It is sealed by their blood and testimony. Would anyone you know be tortured and/or die for something they KNEW to be a lie? Of course not.”

    Regarding “This generation shall not pass…” in Matthew 24 and different interpretations of scripture among Christians;
    This is just going to happen when you have imperfect people doing the interpreting (that’s anyone and everyone!). The Pharisees, the disciples, church leaders, church members, atheists, and I have ALL misinterpreted scripture at some point. Hopefully, we all want to know what God means, but sometimes we fall short in our comprehension skills (or maybe God purposefully does not allow you to understand… Luke 10:21, Romans 11:6-8). This is the same anywhere in life… people can misinterpret most anything.

    “….if prophesy is not what convinced you to follow Christianity, why would you think it would convince me?”

    Do you believe in American History? or Roman history? Do you believe most every secular thing you read that is said to be non-fiction? I bet you don’t question those things at all, yet you seem to think if the Bible says something, it must be wrong. You are so biased because you can’t afford for the Bible to be true. That fact is, you have been presented with more evidence to believe in God and the Bible than anything else you believe in… you simply do not have the ability to believe. (John 6:44) Have you ever humbly asked the Lord to show you the truth??

  7. Stephen Holshouser November 5, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Jay… In case you care;

    Matthew 24 has indeed had many different interpretations placed on it. At the beginning of the chapter He is asked basically 2 questions; When will the temple be destroyed and what will be the sign of His coming and the end of the world? He compares both times and answers both questions throughout the chapter, so I think that is where people get confused.

    But His answers are essentially this;
    Regarding the destruction of the temple– right before the temple is destroyed you will see all these great signs and troubles- all of which were recorded at that time (earthquakes, pestilence, famine, etc.). When you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, head for the hills. (incidentally, there is no recorded death of any Christians at the time of 70AD in Jerusalem because they followed Jesus’ commands… they got out!) and it all happened during that very generation, just like He said.
    Regarding His second coming at the end of the world– no one will know when that is, it will be just like Noah’s day when things were continuing normally until the flood came and destroyed them… it will happen suddenly (also see 1Thess 5:1-5).
    He gives us different instructions for the second coming that don’t include running for the hills as with 70 AD… “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:28. Seventy AD was just for that area, whereas the second coming will affect the whole world (Luke 21:34-35).

  8. Mark James November 5, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    Hi Jon,

    You state that (if) any truth that is subject to our knowledge is not truth at all, “then there are no truths.”

    Isn’t that a truth statement?

  9. Kenneth Tyner November 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Andrew stated:
    If the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in some areas is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited.

    Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made such burrows need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.

    My Reply: Andrew you have built an argument around a series of assumptions. That doesn’t even qualify as theoretical, much less provable. Is that how you actually reason things, by abandoning known observations for hypothetical scenarios? Does doing that even make sense to you? Basically you are saying “don’t believe what you see” and “believe my theory which you can’t see”, because my theory is science and your observations are religious. Thanks for playing.