Really? As in light can exist without a source? Day and night don’t require a sun that the earth turns past? And you say god is the source of all reason, logic, all laws of physics, chemistry, the universe, etc. You’re defending an absolute contradiction here in terms of physical reality/laws of nature vs the text. And, you're violating “operational science”: no need to resort to history to demonstrate operationally that light requires a physical source.

Sure you believe the words - even if scientific facts say otherwise – that’s your creed. This is not by any means name calling or disrespectful. It is simply a question of the literal words you say you believe. Explain in terms related to operational science. Otherwise, you’re just saying “we accept myth over fact”

You won’t print this thought - requires actual thinking and accepting doubt vs absolutism.

 

This is a frequently asked question, which we have answered many times (e.g., in this article by Ken Ham). But many people who ask this question are unwilling to consider the biblical answer. All that’s required for day and night is that the earth turns while receiving light from one direction.

God created light on Day One (Genesis 1:3–4). We’re not saying the light that was created on Day One and continued to shine until Day Four didn’t have a source. Rather, we note that the source of the light for the first three days is not identified in the creation account of Genesis 1. It’s true that the Bible proclaims God is the Author of physical laws (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). As such, God could have provided for a source-less light until He made the sun, moon, and stars on Day Four. However, we consider it more likely that God ordained some other source of light at first. Many have speculated that God Himself was that source, based upon Revelation 21:23, which tells us that God will be the light in the New Jerusalem.

Belief in God Does Not Violate Operational Science

Creationists indeed believe in operational science—how the universe currently operates—as ordained by God. Many creation scientists even feel called to study this as a means of glorifying God. The disagreement we have with the claims in this feedback is that we do not agree that processes have always worked in the past (and will in the future) as they do today. The Apostle Peter alluded to this when he warned about men who claim that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). This assumption does not allow for a sovereign God to operate, and hence, amounts to a denial of God’s existence.

However, since God exists and He created the world, God can intervene in the world when and how He chooses. The sudden appearance of matter and energy would violate the laws that appear to govern the way the world now operates. This is not a problem for the Christian, for we understand from Genesis 1:1–3 that God introduced matter and energy where none had existed before. Much of the Creation Week was miraculous.

The Limitations of Operational Science

Most evolutionists also must posit that matter and energy suddenly appeared, albeit in a big bang. This violates core principles of physics as the world operates today. The difference is that the secular evolutionist can’t explain why matter and energy came into existence. Instead, proponents of the big bang must resort to such silly notions such as expressed by Edward Tryon: “The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.”

Thus, the origin of the universe is not something that operational science can explain but enters into the realm of religious faith. This failure of operational science to explain the origin of the universe is just one limitation of science. More importantly, it underscores the fact that the universe had to have a metaphysical origin. This is what the Apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 1:19–20, where he stated that people understand this and hence they are without excuse. It is the hardness of people’s hearts that keeps them from accepting the truth of creation.

Conclusion

Contrary to the notion expressed in the feedback above, critical thinking does not require “accepting doubt” about the testimony of God’s Word. People often send us statements and questions they claim we won’t publish, since they seem to think Scripture doesn’t have the answers. But as with this instance, the questions are usually ones that we have answered many times over—yet people refuse to accept the biblical truth.

I pray this skeptic would turn from rejecting God and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, our only hope of salvation.

Sincerely,
Danny Faulkner