God made everything "mature". Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees were all created mature on creation week. God is powerful enough to just speak and the world formed correctly, from absolute nothing. As an example of Adam's God-given maturity, the day Adam was created he already knew language (Genesis 2:22-23). If we visited Adam on the first anniversary of his creation (his first birthday) then how old would he have looked? I guarantee he didn't look one year old. If Adam had the tools to carbon date a rock on that same first birthday, what do you really think would be the result? The earth looks old because it was created mature, just like Adam.

No, the laws of physics can not contradict each other. The second law of thermodynamics (the study of energy) says the natural state of any closed system is chaos. The universe is the ultimate closed system. Even astrophysics (the study of the behavior of celestial bodies) must obey this law so planets and stars could never form on their own.

» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?

The moon is an easily overlooked proof of special (supernatural) creation. Consider that it is moving away from the Earth very slowly, about 1.5 inches per year. This does not pose a problem for creationist timelines but this is a serious problem for evolutionists because it would have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. (Remember, evolutionists say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.) Not only would this require the moon to very slowly pass through the Roche Limit on its way to its current position (causing it to be destroyed) but why would it only be moving away at 1.5 inches per year? Creationists have a perfectly sound scientific answer involving the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

» AIG: The moon: the light that rules the night
» Wikipedia: Roche Limit
» HyperPhysics: Conservation of Angular Momentum

Astronomers build models of how the Solar System formed, how each planet formed, chart the planet locations, etc. It is common practice for astronomers to make observations and develop models, then organizations like NASA send satellites to observe closely and confirm or refine the model. NASA sent one such satellite (Mariner) to Mercury in 1974 and got very basic information. Since then evolutionists and creationists have published models of how it must have originated. The superior model would do a better job at describing the real current state of Mercury, should we ever return. NASA sent a second satellite (Messenger) to Mercury which arrived in 2011. Read the article "New Discoveries Delight Creationists" to see how starting with the correct paradigm (assumptions) led creationists to make accurate predictions that embarrassed evolutionists, proving the ability to observe doesn't translate into the authority to invent origins.

» Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists

Evolutionists believe it formed a few billion years ago as a result of dust and gas condensing. This dust and gas also somehow began rotating, which is important to avoid it all just collapsing into a singularity (black hole). There are numerous scientific problems with this evolutionary explanation.

• When rotating objects get smaller, they spin faster. Ice skaters are good examples of this. Based on long-age-models our Sun should be rotating every couple hours, but in reality, it only rotates once a month (every 25 days). This is great for special creationists but a major downer for long-age believers.
• The behavior of gas is represented in Glapeyron's Ideal Gas Law, and the behavior of gravity is represented in Einstein's General Relativity. The problem here is the force of the expansion of gas is greater than the force of gravity. If it weren't, then the Earth would have no atmosphere (it'd all collapse). The Earth has enough mass to keep the gas (atmosphere) contained, but a random gas cloud has no mechanism to achieve critical mass and collapse into a solid in the first place.
• So why'd the gas contract, and why'd it all start rotating at all? If God didn't set it (and all celestial bodies) in motion, then what did? If it was dark matter, then where did it all go? Notice the lack of observable evidence means dark matter is not currently in the domain of "science." Maybe someday we'll find some, but until that day, it's like the Oort Cloud and in the domain of "necessary wishful thinking to explain reality without the God of the Bible." Even if we someday observationally prove the existence of dark matter, that won't automatically prove anything historical, as the ability to observe doesn't give authority to invent origins. Remember, by definition dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter, that's why it's dark. We can't have it both ways, we can't say it causes gas to achieve critical mass by adding mass, then say it took centuries to find evidence for it because it's inert.

The Bible tells us exactly when God created the Sun. He did it on day 4 as recorded in Genesis 1:16. Don't underestimate the significance of this detail. Many cultures in human history have worshiped the Sun. Surely God waited until day 4 to do it to emphasize we should worship the One who made the Sun, rather than the Sun itself, and that the universe got along just fine without the Sun for a few days. God said this explicitly in Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:2-7, and Job intuited it in Job 31:26-28.

» Wiki: Ideal gas law
» Wiki: Gravity
» Wiki: General relativity
» The Mystery of Dark Matter
» Wiki: Oort cloud

As with biological evolution, there is no "missing link" in stellar evolution. In other words, no one has ever observed anything turn into a star, planet, moon, etc. There is not even any target in space we can point our telescopes to that looks like a star birth in process. Sure there are nebula (the most popular is arguably the Eagle Nebula, nicknamed 'the pillars of creation') but that is just a cloud floating in space with a density measured in molecules per cubic centimeter. The sun supposedly has a density of about 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. In the context of the Avogadro Constant, the difference in density of a nebula and our Sun is somewhere around 60 with 22 zeros after it. All observed nebula are expanding and none are contracting. Just because nebula and stars are made of the same elements does not mean the two are stuck forever in a "circle of life". Common elements in stars, nebula, and even on earth and in people can also be explained as evidence of a common designer and creator.

Evolutionists think the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and our Sun is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Clearly not all stars are as old as the Big Bang (there's even a technical term "Population 1" for supposedly more recent stars) so, if we believe those timelines, some stars must have come from some repeatable process. Evolutionists look at stars and are forced to say "they must have come from somewhere, how about nebula?" They have to put all their eggs in this basket. Instead, Creationists can know they were created directly by God just like our planet.

Science is based on observation, but no stars have ever been observed to form. In 2016 I heard the founder of CreationToday.org provide some basic math to help determine if this fact is strange. The European Space Agency estimates that there are somewhere around 10²³ (that's 10 with 23 zeros after it) stars in the known universe. This means in 13 billion years (10⁹), 10²³ stars have formed (more really, since stars have been observed to die in our short lifetimes). Divide this out and on average, hypothetically, we would expect more than 70 trillion (7*10¹³) stars to be born per year. Divide that by the number of seconds in a year and we can estimate to expect there be over 2 million (2*10⁶) stars forming every second. The first telescope was invented about 4 centuries ago. The Hubble Space Telescope has been in operation for over 25 years. We would expect to have seen at least some of the averaged 1 quadrillion (10¹⁵) stars that should have formed during this time, but zero star births have ever been observed. Repeat: zero. Creationists believe all stars were formed on day 4 (Genesis 1:16-19) and none have been born since (Genesis 2:1). Which model fits observable reality better?

» Hubble: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): Pillars of Creation in a Star-Forming Region
» AIG: The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation
» AIG: Taking back astronomy: the heavens declare "creation"!
» Wikipedia: Chemical Mole
» NASA: How old is the sun?
» ESA: How many stars are there in the universe?

You are underestimating the power of an infinite God. When we say that God is omnipotent, we do not simply mean he can spread oceans or withhold the rains if He wants, we mean He can do literally anything. As with Adam, God made the universe mature, which includes when he made a star 10 billion light-years away he also made all the light in all directions at the same time, even the light that was billions of light years away (Isaiah 46:9-10). As with rock and ice layers (below), we can't always correlate size and age.

That said, observable explosions over 6,000 light years away beg a different explanation. Remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It's important to admit we've never traveled at the speed of light and therefore have no observational evidence of what it's like, therefore no proof, therefore only assumptions. See either of the articles below for well thought out explanations, including a problem evolutionists have in explaining something very similar. (After an explosion, the distribution of heat takes time to equalize, and Big Bang models cannot explain why the temperature of the universe has been observed to be uniform. They have an explanation, but it's not based on science, it's based on logic. So if they criticize the Creationist explanation for distant starlight then they're just being hypocritical.)

Note God either says or is attributed as "stretching the heavens" 9 times in scripture (but not specifically in Genesis). If the stars were formed much closer to Earth before God stretched out the heavens, that would help explain this phenomenon.

» Distant Starlight and Biblical Creation
» AiG: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

Blue stars burn bright and fast, so they do not last very long (relatively speaking). Yet there are a plethora of them in all observed spiral galaxies, including our own. The trick is they are mixed in with other yellow, white, and red stars which have a much longer estimated life span. Since no stars have ever been observed to form, simple mathematical logic (even a grade schooler could deduce) says this is evidence that all the stars came into existence at the same time and recently.

» Blue Stars-Unexpected Brilliance
» New Stars in Bright Blue Galaxy?
» Blue Stars
» Star Colors Explained

Light has a very small Doppler effect causing it to favor the red end of the spectrum (called a redshift) when it is moving away from us. Astronomers have detected this redshift in all directions from our galaxy. There seem to be two main ways to interpret the evidence.

• The Milky Way is around 2 million light years from the center of the universe (a trivial distance in universal measurements) and the universe is expanding in all directions away from that center.
• The universe is really comparable to a balloon and the Milky Way is in a non-unique location on that balloon. As the balloon expands everything only seems to be moving away from us in all directions. (By the way, this would be a 4-dimensional balloon so that the things on the opposite side of the balloon are not visible except by light that has traveled around the surface of the balloon.)

How we prove which one it is without divine intervention is beyond me, but it sure prompts interesting science to be thrown out by both sides. Remember God created science so it cannot accurately be used against Him (Proverbs 21:30). Whatever the arch-structure of the universe is is fairly trivial, one of the real hearts of the issue is anthropocentricism versus nihilism: is humanity and the earth at the forefront of deliberate divine focus or is it just a needle in an infinite haystack of divine-less random chance (Deuteronomy 10:14-17, James 1:17-18)?

» Creation Ministries International: Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show
» Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red Shift
» Wikipedia: Modern Geocentrism
» The Theory of Big Bang - a mistake build on wrong precondition

No. The universe, just like each of us, exists only to glorify the Creator: God. (Psalm 19:1-4, Psalm 103:19-22, Psalm 148:1-6, Isaiah 44:22-23, Isaiah 49:13, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34). The bigger the universe, the more impressive God is, even if He chose to limit life only to Earth.

The incomprehensible size of the universe speaks to (shouts) the creativity and power of our Creator. Our universe also declares that everything is in relationship with each other in the physical, just as we are also in the spiritual. Examples of spiritual relationship include parents, siblings, teachers, friends, spouse, kids, etc. An example of physical relationship is that time ticks at different rates depending on both how fast you are moving and how much gravity you experience. An atomic clock will theoretically only lose one second every hundred million years. But if you put 3 of them at very different altitudes (one at sea level, one on top of a mountain, and one on a satellite) they'll need continuously synchronized. Clocks in satellites and on airplanes tick differently than the rest of us who are (in a relative sense) stationary on the surface of the planet. The differences are inconsequentially small with our limited ability to affect gravity or travel great speeds, but the physics are clearly there, testifying to God's intentional design.

» Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale

Nice try, but this doesn't answer anything. We can't explain life by saying it came from somewhere else, because then where did that life come from? Granted, panspermia can make for interesting speculation and science fiction, but it's still just fantasy. This is just a cop-out in case all the evidence on Earth fails to prove the evolutionist agenda (which it does, but evolutionists don't want to admit it, 1 Corinthians 1:27). By the way, keep in mind there is no such thing as proof for creation in the eyes/​mind of an evolutionist. But this is to be expected because there is no such thing as proof for evolution in the eyes of a creationist.

By the way, until evidence is found that there is life anywhere but on earth, it's not science to claim there either is or may be. Claiming there may be life elsewhere is theological or philosophical, not scientific. Even if we try to invoke probability and statistics, we're just kidding ourselves to create the illusion of credibility.

Absolutely not, and please don't. The belief in a flat Earth is an excellent example of a worldview that has (at best) noble intentions of honoring God but is intentionally interpreting observable science differently (by only accounting for a subset of the evidence) to support their own presuppositions. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical is not a question of origins but observation, and so can be answered in the present without any concern for the past.

In my research I found flat-earthers quote a lot of verses that are inconsequential, and some of their strongest arguments (though not strong enough) are Daniel 4:10-11,20,22 and Revelation 1:7, where a single object is seen around the world, and Matthew 4:8 where Satan takes Jesus to a spot where he can see all the kingdoms of the Earth at once. However, Daniel (one of the major prophets) even told Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37-‬39 that God had put all mankind under his (Nebuchadnezzar's) rule, and since he didn't rule any other continents, clearly this was a relative statement and not absolute. An educated flat-earther should be ready to counter verses like Psalm 103:12, Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22. They probably will, and a spherical-earther won't be satisfied by their answer.

Another passage, Psalm 19:4-6, is quoted by flat-earthers, but is clearly a metaphor (based on both literary context and observable reality). Sometimes the authors could have just spoken from their own perspective. Interpreting perception as absolute reality is not limited to any worldview. For example, while Acts 12:22 is a verse in the Bible, it's never quoted as accurate truth. It is preserved in the Bible as an accurate recording of a statement that was made. (Read the context in Acts 12:21-23.) Similarly, Obadiah 1:4 doesn't have to be interpreted that people had interstellar travel capabilities, and 1 Kings 4:34 doesn't have to mean that Solomon's wisdom was truly known on all 6 continents (skipping Antarctica).

One of the biggest challenges with people who believe in a flat earth is their perception of the scientific method. They believe people who use it to prove the Earth is spherical are corrupt, and therefore the method itself is corrupt. So they may fall back on phenomenalism (physical objects cannot be proven to exist apart from how we perceive them) or solipsism (the self is all that can be known). Resorting to either of these philosophies is just a cop-out. My personal favorite terrestrial proof (that is, one that doesn't involve actually flying up into space) that the spherical globe is the accurate model of reality, is the flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile. This is a short flight in reality, but would be the longest on Earth if the world were flat, according to the Flat Earth Society's official map (here).

The whole point of this webpage is to remind us all theology (all worldviews: flat earth, spherical earth, old earth, young earth, infinite earth) must be reconcilable to observable reality, otherwise we are in serious danger of believing fiction. Fiction is not worth defending as fact and can lead to disastrous consequences (Genesis 3:4, Romans 1:25). In addition to the serious theological and eternal ramifications of false doctrine, believing fact can lead to ever-increasing quality of life. The space programs of multiple nations, beginning with Russia, the USA, the European Space Agency, and the Chinese, to name a few, have repeatedly demonstrated our world is spherical by taking photos and videos of the Earth as their ships orbit it, plus other satellites like those supporting the Global Positioning System on our cell phones support a spherical earth. Besides, the mathematical calculations required to put a ship in orbit required the foundational assumption that the world was spherical in the first place. That's not to say there is no mystery in the world. There is a ton of mystery, and truth is often stranger than fiction. Evolutionists, when backed into a corner with a question that can't be answered, will always default with an answer that we haven't discovered everything yet. It's also possible for an evolutionist to raise a point that can't be easily explained by Creationists. We have two default answers. One is exactly the same answer as the evolutionist (that we just haven't discovered enough yet). The other is God is complex and infinitely smart, and didn't/​doesn't have to do everything in a way that makes sense to you and me (Isaiah 55:8-9). But those are just fallback positions and don't count as answers, and the point of this web page is to briefly highlight that we do have many answers and don't have to use the fallback position as a crutch (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

» Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America

Einstein proved that space and time are connected. The concept was so widely accepted that in Star Trek they frequently talked about the "space time continuum." In Genesis 1:1, when God made the heavens and the earth, he laid the foundations for everything. By the second verse, He created matter, energy, light, space, and time. Time ticks on just the same whether you're on the surface of the earth or in orbit or in interstellar space, is unaffected by the sun, though is affected by gravity and speed (but is affected the same no matter where you are and your relationship to the sun.) There is absolutely no scientific challenge with measuring 3.5 literal 24-hour days without our sun and/​or moon.

In the Bible there is not any mention that can be interpreted to even hint at (let alone explicitly state) millions or billions of years of Earthly or universal history. The alignment of the observable universe to what we read in the Bible is important to counter the possibilities (accusations) that

• biological evolution is real
• it was just a false god (in other words, an alien) who came and tricked Moses and the rest (for example, the movie Stargate).
• random people over history conspired to invent both the Bible and God

The verses above, by themselves, only prove one thing: God took 100% of the credit. The science here doesn't prove the Bible, God proves His word through His work, and this resource reminds us that all observable reality aligns.

---