Thursday, May 22, 2014

Why Should I Question the Age of the Earth? Pt. 3 A Science Based on Assumptions

In the previous blog post we looked at reasons why believing in mainstream science's theory of an old earth is a compromise of God's Word. The primary focus was on the Gap Theory, a theory that attempts to merge an old earth with the Bible by proposing that millions of years occurred within the creation period in Genesis 1. Here is a summary of why I believe the Gap Theory compromises the Word of God:
  • The Bible teaches the earth and universe were created in six literal days. 
  • The Bible teaches that death only came into existence when Adam sinned.
  • Jesus clearly taught a short creation and a young earth.
Now, I want to focus on why mainstream science believes in an old earth, and I want to ask this question:

Are radiometric dating and other scientific dating techniques reliable?

In order to answer this question, we must first ask another question:

What is radiometric dating?

Radiometric dating refers to a technique used to date materials such as rocks, based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using observed decay rates. It can also be defined as the process of estimating the ages of geological specimens by observing the decay of radioactive isotopes found inside them. 


(Perplexed Koala)

For example, certain elements found within rocks spontaneously decay into other elements such as potassium which over time will radioactively decay into argon. The testing of the amount of potassium that has decayed into argon can theoretically tell us how old the rock is, based on an observed decay rate (or length of time it takes for potassium to decay into argon). 

These radiometric dating techniques are a foundational component in the theory of an old earth. Based on these radiometric dating techniques scientists have aged rocks and other materials to be millions or even billions of years old. 

So are these dating techniques reliable?

Here is why I believe these dating techniques could be misleading:

1. Errors in Testing

Though mainstream science has crammed into our heads the reliability of radiometric dating, how reliable are these dating techniques really?

A recent study by a group of scientists called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has shown that there may be significant errors in scientific dating techniques. Dr. Andrew Snelling in “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks” provides a summary of the results:

                                              Table 1: Errors in Testing1



These results show significant error in rocks that have a known origin, such as a rock formed in 1986 that radiometric dating shows the rock forming up to 2.8 million years ago! That's a huge difference! 

Thus, these results and others greatly call in to question the reliability of some of our radiometric dating techniques.

So why do we see such error in these results?

What are some potential flaws in the way these radiometric tests are performed?

Well, that brings me to my next point..

2. Naturalistic Uniformitarianism

What is naturalistic uniformitarianism you ask?

Naturalistic uniformitarianism is just a fancy way of saying 'the way science and the world works now is the way it's always been'. 

Naturalistic uniformitarianism is described in a quote by James Hutton in ‘Theory of the Earth’:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. . . . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.

-James Hutton, in ‘Theory of the Earth’2

This assumption is key to the whole scientific theory of an old earth. Under this assumption, scientists observe decay rates in rocks today and assume that these decay rates have been relatively constant over the history of the earth. Thus, using the current decay rates their tests result in extremely old ages for these rocks. 

But let me emphasize this: this is an assumption.

I can see why scientists choose to make this assumption. It's a naturalistic and uniform way to view the history of the earth. But why must we make these assumptions? Might it also be possible that these decay rates haven't been constant over time? 

It is impossible for anyone to assuredly say that these decay rates have always been constant. Why? Because no one alive today was there thousands or 'millions' of years ago to observe the decay rates in rocks. 

You see, there is a difference between 'observational science' (science we can observe today) and 'historical science' (science we cannot observe which occurred in the past).

Here are some other key assumptions that many scientists make:
  • The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
  • The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
It is clear that the theory of an old earth is based on numerous critical assumptions about 'historical science'.

I want to now challenge these assumptions and make some assumptions of my own:

Assumption #1Creation With the Appearance of Age

Since mainstream scientists have the allowance to make these assumptions, how about we make some of our own assumptions?

One such assumption we could make is "creation with the appearance of age".

In Genesis 1:11-13 it states:

Genesis 1:11-13 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.13 And the evening and the morning were the third day." (KJV)

These verses tell us that God created the tree already yielding fruit on the third day. This means that God didn't create a barren wasteland and plant seeds that would soon grow into plants and trees over many years, but rather he created plants, trees, and the earth as already full-grown.

This is how I view God's initial creation:

(God's Creation)
Photo via Trqiquetra at triquetrahtlcc

You see, I think it is safe to assume that God created plants, trees, rocks, and creatures already full-grown. So if God created these things full-grown, how can we determine how old they really are?

For example, think about how God created Adam. How old was Adam when he was created? It is evident that God did not create Adam as a 1 day old infant. He was created as a full-grown man. So how then can we determine Adam's age? Was he 1 day old or was he "created with the appearance of age".

You see, if we did scientific testing on Adam and perhaps studied the growth rate of his bones to try and determine his age and based on our scientific testing we got a result of 32 years old, we would be wrong!

So why do we think we can test rocks or trees to determine their age if God may have created them with an appearance of an age of thousands or millions of years old?

This assumption would clearly skew the scientific testing on the age of the earth.

Assumption #2: Accelerated Decay Rates

One might argue and say that radiometric dating techniques would not be affected by God creating the earth with an "appearance of age".

Okay then, let's make another assumption. Let's assume that this idea of naturalistic uniformitarianism is false. Nobody can claim to know what was happening in this world thousands or 'millions' of years ago. Why? Because we were not there.

So, let's assume then that the world was not always the same, and thus the assumed decay rates in rocks and other materials were not always constant. 

Is there any scientific evidence to support this claim?

As mentioned before, the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has done numerous studies on radiometric dating and the age of the earth. One such study was done on granite rocks in which radioactive uranium (U-238) decays into lead (Pb-206) with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. See the study in more detail here.

The study states that as uranium decays in granite it produces helium atoms. These helium atoms have been observed to migrate very quickly out of the rocks and into the atmosphere. However, upon studying these rocks the RATE group found large amounts of helium trapped inside the rocks which should have migrated from the rocks 'millions' of years ago.


(Helium is Produced)
Photo via icr in 'Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth'3

What does the abundance of helium found in these rocks indicate?

This indicates that some time in the history of nuclear decay in these rocks, the decay rate was greatly accelerated and thus helium was trapped inside the rocks. Here is a quote from the RATE group:

"The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago."

-The RATE Group4

The RATE group has found further evidence that this billions of years worth of radioactive decay most likely occurred during a few days or even a few hours at this accelerated decay rate. This means that these rocks may have appeared to have aged a billion years in just a few days! Talk about skewing the data!

So what event(s) have occurred on the earth between 4000 and 8000 years ago that might have caused this accelerated decay in these rocks?

I'll give you three suggestions:

1. The Creation Week

The biggest objection to accelerated decay is that accelerated decay would produce too much heat in the atmosphere. However, God provides an answer to that objection as well.

Psalm 104:2 "Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" (KJV)

This verse indicates to us that God perhaps stretched out the heavens or expanded the atmosphere and space. Scientists agree that if accelerated decay occurred at the same time as an expansion of space, the expansion would thus remove the excess heat produced from the decay.

So then the question becomes: 

When in the Bible could an expansion of space have occurred?

Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)

During the creation week God created the atmosphere around the earth (firmament) and thus expanded the atmosphere by dividing the waters above from the waters below.

Therefore, with this expansion of space during the creation week this would allow a much more accelerated decay rate in these rocks to occur causing the rocks on earth to appear millions of years older than they actually were.

2. The Pre-Flood Era

The Bible indicates the world was a different place and functioned differently during the period before the great Biblical flood. This is shown in Genesis 1:7.

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)

This tells us that the world was surrounded by water. There was water above the earth (above the sky/atmosphere) and water beneath the earth (in and under the oceans). The atmosphere was entirely different!

The Bible also seems to indicates that it did not rain on earth until the flood in which the firmament was opened up and the water flowed in from above and below.

We also know from the Bible that mankind lived for an incredibly long period of time before the flood. Prior to the flood, the average age of a human is believed to be around 857.5 years! Wow!

Clearly, the earth was an entirely different place. So perhaps during the period from the initial creation to the Biblical flood these decay rates were much different and perhaps much more accelerated than we observe them to be today.

3. The Flood

One of the most recognizable and important stories in the Bible is that of the flood. This was described as a catastrophic event that marked a turning point in the history of mankind and the earth.

(The Great Flood)
Photo via creationrevolution

Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (KJV)

The world was said to be completely changed during the time of the flood. The great flood was a global and catastrophic event. Could this have been the time that accelerated decay occured?

It is postulated here that just as during the creation week, an expansion of space might have also occurred during the flood thus allowing accelerated decay to occur in these rocks.

This is supported by the idea that in 2 Samuel 22:9-16 King David is making an analogy between his own deliverance and the great flood. Phrases in these verses such as "fire out of his mouth devoured" and "he bowed the heavens" seem to indicate that great heat and an expansion of space might have occurred at the same time during the great flood. 

So just as in the creation week, this expansion of space during the flood would allow for much more accelerated decay rates in these rocks.

Conclusion:

It is evident that radiometric dating may not be as reliable as we think in determining the exact age of the earth. The two main reasons to support this claim are as follows:
  • Errors in the testing
  • It is based on significant assumptions
My point in this blog post is not to say that mainstream scientific dating techniques are entirely bogus, but rather that they may be misguided as they are based on assumptions about the history of this world that no man alive today can truly know. 

Just as scientists do we can choose to make our own assumptions about the history of the world using events we find in the Bible. And we can see that these assumptions based on Biblical accounts give us a viable explanation as to why we see errors in testing and such large numbers in radiometric dating.

But the problem is, scientific textbooks in schools and the media do not spread these other ideas and assumptions about the age of the earth. Instead, they present mainstream science's assumption of an old earth as gospel and they keep any other ideas and the Bible out of it.

I am here, however, to help make known that the Bible and true science do coincide. That there's more ideas out there than a 4.54 billion year old earth. And that there are many scientists and much evidence that support these other ideas of a young earth and a Biblical creation.

So it all comes down to who or what you are willing to trust:

Will you trust the all-knowing God or will you trust the teachings and ideas of man?

Sincerely,

Jacob Springer
A Young Christian


Footnotes:
1 Snelling, A. A. 1999. "Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks. Acts & Facts. 28 (1).
2 James Hutton, Theory of the Earth (Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Edinburgh, 1785); quoted in A. Holmes, Principles of Physical Geology (UK: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1965), p. 43–44.
3 L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, and E. Chaffine, (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
4 R. Humphreys, Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, 2005, 74.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Why Should I Question the Age of the Earth? Pt. 2 They Just Don't Mix

In the previous blog post we introduced the topic of Why Should I Question the Age of the Earth? by looking at a basic overview of the mainstream scientific account and the Biblical account of the age of the earth.

Here is a summary of the two sides:



In comparing the Bible and mainstream science we can see an astounding difference:

  4,550,000,000 years
-               6,000 years
-----------------------------
  4,549,994,000 years 

That’s a difference of 4,549,994,000 years!

However, it is becoming more and more common for Christians to begin accepting mainstream science's teaching of an old earth as truth. And in doing so, they begin to compromise God's Word in order to make the Bible fit mainstream science. 

I believe this poses a great threat to the integrity of Christ's Church. We can NOT compromise God's Word to fit the thoughts and ideas of man as shown here:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (KJV)

We are warned by God here not to allow the philosophy or vain deceit of man fool us into compromising God's Word.

So then the question becomes:

Is believing in mainstream science's theory of an old earth a compromise of God's Word?

In order to answer this question let's look at the most popular theory that attempts to merge the Bible with mainstream science:

The Gap Theory

The most popular theory that many Christians buy into concerning the merging of these two ideas is called The Gap Theory

In an effort to combine the theories of an old earth and the Biblical creation Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) and later many other scholars helped popularize the idea of the Gap Theory. 

(Thomas Chalmers)
Retrieved from britannica.com

The basic idea of the Gap Theory is that billions of years went by between the first two verses of the Bible:

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)

So basically God created the heaven and the earth and then allowed billions of years to pass (in which macro-evolution occurred) and billions of years later God finalized his creation starting in Genesis 1:2.

(The Gap Theory)
Retrieved from Dr. Kent's Creation Seminars at wiseoldgoat.com

This theory can be found in an excerpt from Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible:

When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years.. between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.

-Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible

Thus, with the addition of these billions of years between these two verses we have the Bible and mainstream science in complete agreement.

So the Gap Theory sounds pretty legitimate, right?

Here are three reasons why I believe the Gap Theory and any other related theory is a direct compromise of God's Word:

1. Six Literal Days

The Bible teaches that ALL things were created in six literal days.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (KJV)

The Gap Theory states that God created the heaven and the earth, and then billions of years later (through evolution) God finalized the sea and creatures and mankind. But that's not what Exodus 20:11 says! Exodus 20:11 states that the heaven, the earth, the sea and ALL things within them were created in just six days! Thus, the Gap Theory is a direct contradiction of God's Word.

Some then may argue that the word 'day' (or 'yom' in Hebrew) in Genesis or Exodus could be translated to mean thousands or millions of years. This is sometimes referred to as the Day-Age theory. Is this theory legitimate?

Throughout the Old Testament the word ‘day’ (or 'yom' in Hebrew) is used over 200 times and is always translated to mean a literal 24 hour day. This is further evident in Genesis 1 when God uses the phrase ‘evening and the morning’ to describe the word ‘day’. Thus the word ‘day’ here must be taken in its most literal sense.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (KJV)

For a more comprehensive study on the Day-Age theory check out this article: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/

2. The Death Problem

The Bible clearly states that when Adam (from Adam and Eve) sinned he brought sin and death into this world. This is stated in Romans 5 here:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

Therefore, if Adam brought death into the world we can infer that death was not present before Adam sinned.

However, if we follow the Gap Theory, we agree to the idea that evolution occurred during this 'Gap' period and thus creatures lived and died over millions of years during this 'Gap'. 

(The Death Problem)
Retrieved from answersingenesis.org

But how could Adam have brought death into this world if the Gap Theory implies that death had already been around for millions of years?

Perhaps the creatures of the Gap Theory never died, but they were millions of years old at the time of Adam and Eve?

I don't buy it. You see, trying to compromise the literal meaning of Genesis leads to conflict and illogical conclusions.

3. Jesus Taught a Young Earth

Perhaps the most compelling argument is that Jesus believed and taught a short creation. In Mark 10:6 Jesus states:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (KJV)

Jesus states that God created man and woman ‘from the beginning of creation’. The Gap Theory states that man and woman had not come into existence until billions of years after the initial creation. 

Do you really think when Jesus stated that God created man and woman ‘from the beginning of creation’, that he meant 14 billion years after the creation? 

That is what the Gap Theory teaches.

Conclusion:

If you choose to believe in mainstream science's theory of an old earth, I feel it is evident that you are in direct contradiction with Jesus' teachings and God's Word itself.

I cannot stress enough the danger of compromising God's Word based on the ideas and teachings of man. Mankind and mainstream science have been wrong countless times before in the history of this world, but the Bible has always been proven true.

So it all comes down to who or what you are willing to trust:

Will you trust the all-knowing God or will you trust the teachings and ideas of man?

I invite you to have an open heart and open mind in studying this topic. My intent is not to put down the beliefs and opinions of others, but instead to promote and spread the truth of God's Word.

In the next few posts I will look at flaws within the mainstream scientific theory of an old earth, and why this theory may not be as valid as you think.

Sincerely,

Jacob Springer
A Young Christian

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Why Should I Question the Age of the Earth? Pt. 1 Introduction

How old are you?

This is a question we hear often in conversation and we hardly have to think twice about our answer (if we're honest).

But what if someone asked you this question:

How old is the Earth?

What would you answer? Really old? Or would you stand there with an expression on your face looking something like this:


(Keanu Reeves Dumbfounded)

Man has some pretty good theories on how old the earth is. One such theory comes from mainstream science which is the most popular and publicly taught answer to this question. But is this 'scientific' answer the only one out there? Should we blindly accept this theory or should we question 'why'?

The following will serve as an introduction to the topic of Why Should I Question the Age of the Earth?. In this introduction I will look at the 'Scientific' Answer as well as the Biblical Answer to this question.

The 'Scientific' Answer:

a. An Old Earth

According to modern day scientists the age of the earth is about 4.55 Billion Years (~14 Billion for the Universe). This is based upon radiometric dating, the Big Bang theory, evolution, and other scientific testing. The following is an excerpt from Paul S. Braterman in an article entitled ‘How Science Figured Out the Age of the Earth’:

“It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.”

-Paul S. Braterman (Oct 20, 2013). How Science Figured Out the Age of the Earth. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

That's a really old earth!


(An Old Earth)
Photo via Dave Reneke, from How Old is the Earth.

b. The Big Bang Theory

So we know that most scientists believe the earth is billions of years old. But how did it all begin?

Modern scientists have observed that the universe is ever expanding. Thus, observing this expansion most scientists believe that the universe (which includes the earth) had an origination point. The most popular theory around this origin is commonly referred to as the Big Bang theory.


(The Big Bang Theory)
Photo via Widewallz, from Widewallz.com

The Big Bang theory states that ~14 Billion years ago the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state that began to rapidly expand. In other words, a long time ago the whole universe was extremely small and dense (perhaps the size of a pea) when a sudden explosion (big bang) occurred that caused the universe to rapidly expand to what it is today.

There are many famous and intelligent scientists that believe this theory such as Dr. Stephen Hawking who has many lectures on The Origin of the Universe. (You can google it)

The Biblical Answer:

a. A Young Earth

The Bible does not explicitly give us the exact age of the earth. However, by using the multiple genealogies and accurate historical accounts found in the Bible we can deduce that the age of the earth is somewhere around 6000 years. The following is an excerpt from an article entitled ‘How old is the earth?’ by Bodie Hodge:

"Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

            5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
-------------------
   ~6,000 years"

-Bodie Hodge, (May 30, 2007) in 'How old is the earth?'

b. A Six Day Creation

Genesis 1 and 2 tells us that the whole universe was created in six days. In Genesis 2:1-3 we read how God rested on the seventh day after all the universe was made.

Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)

Here is a table summarizing the creation week:

The Creation Week
Day 1 (Gen. 1:3-5)
Heavens, earth, light and darkness
Day 2 (Gen. 1:6-8)
Atmosphere
Day 3 (Gen. 1:9-13)
Dry land, seas, vegetation
Day 4 (Gen. 1:14-19)
Sun, moon, stars
Day 5 (Gen. 1:20-23)
Creatures in water, birds in air
Day 6 (Gen. 1:24-31)
Creatures on land, man and woman
Day 7 (Gen. 2:1-3)
Day of Rest

c. An Eternal Creator

Finally, the Bible also gives an answer to how it all began.

The Bible tells us that God was there at the ‘beginning’ of time. Thus God was there before 'time' began, implying God is eternal.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (KJV)

This is further indicated multiple times in scripture when God is referred to as ‘everlasting to everlasting’ or from ‘age to age’.

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (KJV)

God is also referred to as the all powerful creator implying that He created and designed the whole universe.

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (KJV)

Thus, the Bible's answer is that God is the force that created all things, rather than a self-imposed Big Bang.


(God the Creator)
Photo via Chris Scholten, from www.behance.net

Conclusion:

So it is clear that these two answers are completely different. Which one do you believe?

I challenge you to take a side, and to explore these answers more deeply. This is not something we should be ignorant of, because the implications of the answer clue us in to exactly why and how we got here.

The next few blog posts will delve deeper into this discussion between the 'Scientific' Answer and the Biblical Answer to the age of the Earth. In the next blog post we will look at a comparison of the two sides, and I will attempt to explain why these two answers just cannot mix.

Sincerely,

Jacob Springer
A Young Christian

Monday, February 10, 2014

Why Should I Question "why?"

An almost oxymoronic question some people may ask is "Why should I question 'why'?".

I'll tell you why.

Non-Christian POV:

From a non-Christian point of view, I'll say this: Imagine for a moment that there is a higher purpose for your existence. Imagine there is more to life than your daily routine of waking up early, sitting in traffic, working your 9am-5pm, and eating a frozen dinner before bedtime. Imagine there is even more to life than enjoying time with your friends and/or family.

If you have no higher purpose in your life then you are just 'living to die' or in other words your life is just a 'means to an end'. Simply put, most people's lives can be summarized as 'you're born, you work, and you die'.


(You're born, you work, and you die)
Photo by FrealaF via deviantart

If I did not believe in a Higher Power, my existence would seem meaningless. Sure, I can try and make the world a better place and have a good time while on this earth, but what does it get me when I die?

I truly believe we have a much deeper purpose for being here. And I am not asking you to believe everything that I believe. But I am asking you to at least question "why?".

Christian POV:

From a Christian point of view, if you have grown up in the church you may not have ever really asked this question "why?" and you may have just accepted what was drilled into you your whole life. You may have been told, "Go to church" or "Study your Bible" or "There is a God". But should we blindly accept these statements and never question them?

Let's say we do choose to just accept these statements. Then if we do we will accept that the Bible is truth. Well, let's look at what the Bible has to say on the matter:

Phillipians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (NKJV)

This tells us that we must work out our own salvation.We cannot piggyback our way to heaven on the backs of our parents, or spouses, or whomever. Our salvation is our own for the taking and we must seek it, understand it, and hold on to it on our own.


(Phillipians 2:12)
Photo via wallpaper4God

And again we are told that we will answer to our own sins here:

Romans 14:12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God (NKJV)

So don't just accept everything as 'gospel' because your parents say it, or your spouse says it, or even a preacher says it. Don't believe someone just because they sound smart with their fancy words or seem genuine and trustworthy. Because if you do you run the risk of doing this:

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men (NKJV)

But instead we are commanded to do this:

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world (NKJV)

We are told here to test every spirit and every doctrine that we hear.  And that's what I challenge you to do.

 
(Challenge accepted)

So in conclusion, asking "why?" is an important and even necessary duty we have as Christians and Non-Christians. So let's continue to challenge each other and challenge ourselves to seek the truth, understand the truth, and never let it go.

Sincerely,

Jacob Springer
A Young Christian

Introduction

Hello,

My name is Jacob Springer and I am a young Christian in Christ's church. I am starting this blog in an effort to share my opinion on the world around me and particularly my reason for existence.

Have you ever wondered why you are here? Have you ever questioned how this world and life came to be?

I have. It's a question we all ponder at some point in our life. Even 3 year old children have these thoughts when they repeatedly ask: "why?". A large percentage of the population just shrug it off, accept their position in life and don't continue to question "why?".

But I'm not here to do that. I am writing this blog in an effort to question "why?" and to give my opinion on the answer.

In A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the answer to this ultimate question of "why?" is "42". But I think it goes much deeper than that.


(The Answer to the Ultimate Question)

Full disclosure: I was born and raised a Christian. But I've done my research of both internal evidences and external evidences to come to my own conclusion on the matter.  

In this blog I hope to answer this question "why?" as well discuss many other topics related to Christianity and life in general. I hope you enjoy my blog, and I invite friendly and professional discussion.

Sincerely,

Jacob Springer
A Young Christian