Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[The Cadet]

Mt. St. Helens a recent catastrophic event that involved a liquid (lava).

Yes, and while water is liquid at typical room temperature, lava quickly solidifies into rock. This is a pretty substantial difference between the two models. If I pour water over one flat surface and lava over the other, the water will not necessarily leave sedimentary deposits behind, but the lava will leave a layer of igneous rock. Oh, and then there's the ash (another solid deposit from volcanic eruptions that is not necessarily present in flooding).

Beyond that, I can find no support for the claim that Mt. St. Helens produced multiple sedimentary layers in a single eruption, but it wouldn't matter - an eruption is not a flood. They act differently, and have different geologic signatures.

What more do you want?

An explanation for how a single flood event can lay down multiple sedimentary layers, including chalk beds (comprised of the skeletal remains of micro-organisms) hundreds of feet thick, yet despite being global, not produce any sediment in antarctic or arctic ice cores that document dates both before and after the alleged date of the flood. An explanation for how every "kind" of animal on earth could fit onto a boat without that boat sinking or without these animals eating each other. An explanation for how sloths made their way from the middle east to south america, leaving no detectable remains on the journey. An explanation for how plant life survived a global flood that would have covered the entire earth in a layer of fine silt. I can keep going, if you want - the absurdities in the model are piled high and deep.

There many witnesses to His death, there was an empty tomb, no dead body, and over 500 witnesses who saw him alive at one time, many of whom were tortured to death rather than recant their faith in the risen Jesus.

This is all interesting, but how much of it is independently verifiable? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that these 500 witnesses never provided individual testimony - rather, there is exactly one document that records them: the bible. And the bible is not a reliable testimony by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[seashale76]

Good day cobber, but no, I'm not "missing the point being made in order to quibble over wording". Just a simple question to clarify a meaning; no sub-text or ulterior motive.

Thank you for the other information, I always enjoy reading different opinions, and you certainly offer food for thought. I must say though, I think there's a little too much generalisation in your synopsis e.g. "clinging doggedly to sola scriptura", "never to have read any of the New testament" etc. My experience with atheist suggests that a great many are just that i.e. a theists, without further complications. Any tendency towards an atheistic sola scriptura is probably because the Bible offers so many absurd claims worthy of ridicule, and of course, it's debating Biblical literalists on their own turf. I've not known any atheist, and trust me, I know a good many, who regard the Bible as a 'scientific text. I'm not sure where you get that from. Perhaps atheist in you bailiwick are different to the ones down under! Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

Best wishes.

You actually are misunderstanding my meaning, because I quantified my statement to clearly not encompass all atheists. There is a certain type of atheist that loves to post on Internet forums that are exactly like I mentioned. I've seen it repeatedly over the years. The 'scientific text' statement was tongue in cheek hyperbole- but they are rather married to the idea that it must be that way for a believer- even when told otherwise. This is why they also love to cling to their Sola Scriptura and like to ignore huge swaths of the New Testament- because I suppose it's easier to tilt at windmills.

Of course, in my initial post to you, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt by saying their adherence to these ideas reflects the exact type of Christianity they are either most familiar with, were influenced by, and perhaps once were part of, but that may be giving some of the offenders too much credit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I heard.

You know better than that. As a Christian you are supposed to be honest.

That's not what I heard.

Again, you know better than that.

If I believed God lied, I'd have trouble with a lot of facts.

Yes, we have seen that you have that problem.

IOW, I'd be like you guys.

No, you wouldn't. You see we are honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

An explanation for how a single flood event can lay down multiple sedimentary layers,

God did it when He cleaned up the mess.

Leaving behind one of His signature Truths:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

... including chalk beds (comprised of the skeletal remains of micro-organisms) hundreds of feet thick,

God swept coccolithophores into a nice neat aesthetic pile that was useful for people to even build houses on.

... yet despite being global, not produce any sediment in antarctic or arctic ice cores that document dates both before and after the alleged date of the flood.

There were no ice caps before the Flood.

The earth was a tropical paradise.

An explanation for how every "kind" of animal on earth could fit onto a boat without that boat sinking or without these animals eating each other.

That "boat," as you called it, could have been a TARDIS booth, housing ten times ten times ten the amount of passengers who were allowed to board.

And if I'm wrong, and you feel like ridiculing it, help yourself; but then you called the Ark a "boat," and I won't reciprocate in kind.

An explanation for how sloths made their way from the middle east to south america, leaving no detectable remains on the journey.

God could have teleported them back to their ecological niches as they disembarked, the same way He did the Apostle Philip.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

An explanation for how plant life survived a global flood that would have covered the entire earth in a layer of fine silt.

God re-floraled the earth directly after the Flood, as attested to by the dove that brought back the olive leaf.

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Acts 8 and Genesis 8 are all you need to understand this.

I can keep going, if you want -

By all means ... help yourself.

... the absurdities in the model are piled high and deep.

As I said, I won't reciprocate in kind.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, the 6 literal day creation is not a myth.

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar... (Romans 3:4b)

I believe in a literal Bible. Still I am a dispensationalist, according to Moses a day is 1,000 years.

 

[Luke17:37]

Yes, and while water is liquid at typical room temperature, lava quickly solidifies into rock. This is a pretty substantial difference between the two models. If I pour water over one flat surface and lava over the other, the water will not necessarily leave sedimentary deposits behind, but the lava will leave a layer of igneous rock. Oh, and then there's the ash (another solid deposit from volcanic eruptions that is not necessarily present in flooding).

Beyond that, I can find no support for the claim that Mt. St. Helens produced multiple sedimentary layers in a single eruption, but it wouldn't matter - an eruption is not a flood. They act differently, and have different geologic signatures.



An explanation for how a single flood event can lay down multiple sedimentary layers, including chalk beds (comprised of the skeletal remains of micro-organisms) hundreds of feet thick, yet despite being global, not produce any sediment in antarctic or arctic ice cores that document dates both before and after the alleged date of the flood.

You can start with this: https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/flood-geology/

There are deeply technical videos available from people like Dr. Andrew Snelling if you are legitimately interested in an answer.

An explanation for how every "kind" of animal on earth could fit onto a boat without that boat sinking or without these animals eating each other.

Animal kind is not the same as species. Several species of today are descended from the one animal kind. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/

The animals were originally made by God to be vegetarians (Genesis 1:30). So were humans (Genesis 1:29). God didn't allow humans to eat animals until after the flood (Genesis 9:3). Because He only brought a male and female of each kind (except a five extra of "clean animals" that Noah sacrificed to God after the flood), the animals were also vegetarians still on the ark. And the animals' fear of humans didn't arrive until after the flood, either (Genesis 9:2).

An explanation for how sloths made their way from the middle east to south america, leaving no detectable remains on the journey. An explanation for how plant life survived a global flood that would have covered the entire earth in a layer of fine silt. I can keep going, if you want - the absurdities in the model are piled high and deep.

Concerning animal migration:
https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/migration/how-did-animals-spread-from-where-ark-landed/

Floods can destroy plant life (the global flood certainly did), but it can grow out of the earth again and they do.

This is all interesting, but how much of it is independently verifiable? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that these 500 witnesses never provided individual testimony - rather, there is exactly one document that records them: the bible. And the bible is not a reliable testimony by any stretch of the imagination.

Josh McDowell is just one man who researched the resurrection to try to prove it false. He ended up believing it to be true because "the evidence demands a verdict" (that's the name of one of his books, a very detailed examination of the evidence for the resurrection and all counter arguments). Belief and submission are different but he eventually came to faith in Christ because he was convinced of God's love. And no, his life wasn't a bed of roses. It was hard. He came from a disfunctional family and years of childhood sexual abuse so he had plenty of hurt.

There's a film about Josh McDowell called Undaunted: The Early Life of Josh McDowell. It's on Netflix last I checked. This is a docudrama, so he is actually in the film.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2076977/

Josh isn't alone; there are others like him (e.g., Lee Strobel, Nabeel Qureshi, to name two). There's quite a bit of evidence for the resurrection. You owe it to yourself to personally examine it. Wouldn't you want to know if it was true? If not, well, I can't help you there, but God is able. And you're permitted to reject God if you desire. Cheers!

 

[Julie.S]

If there is one thing militant atheists and creationists agree on, it is that the Bible is a science text book. The only difference between them is that the former try to argue that it is full of errors, and the latter that it contains no errors.

They are both operating upon a fundamentally flawed premise.

I have to agree. I have yet to see something is flawless completely.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Exactly, there is so much bull, the whole thing is tossed out of court on it's ears!

God makes it clear who does and who does not represent Him so that there is no confusion. People are without excuse. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

 

[Jimmy D]

You can start with this: https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/flood-geology/

There are deeply technical videos available from people like Dr. Andrew Snelling if you are legitimately interested in an answer.



Animal kind is not the same as species. Several species of today are descended from the one animal kind. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/

The animals were originally made by God to be vegetarians (Genesis 1:30). So were humans (Genesis 1:29). God didn't allow humans to eat animals until after the flood (Genesis 9:3). Because He only brought a male and female of each kind (except a five extra of "clean animals" that Noah sacrificed to God after the flood), the animals were also vegetarians still on the ark. And the animals' fear of humans didn't arrive until after the flood, either (Genesis 9:2).



Concerning animal migration:
https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/migration/how-did-animals-spread-from-where-ark-landed/

Floods can destroy plant life (the global flood certainly did), but it can grow out of the earth again and they do.



Josh McDowell is just one man who researched the resurrection to try to prove it false. He ended up believing it to be true because "the evidence demands a verdict" (that's the name of one of his books, a very detailed examination of the evidence for the resurrection and all counter arguments). Belief and submission are different but he eventually came to faith in Christ because he was convinced of God's love. And no, his life wasn't a bed of roses. It was hard. He came from a disfunctional family and years of childhood sexual abuse so he had plenty of hurt.

There's a film about Josh McDowell called Undaunted: The Early Life of Josh McDowell. It's on Netflix last I checked. This is a docudrama, so he is actually in the film.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2076977/

Josh isn't alone; there are others like him (e.g., Lee Strobel, Nabeel Qureshi, to name two). There's quite a bit of evidence for the resurrection. You owe it to yourself to personally examine it. Wouldn't you want to know if it was true? If not, well, I can't help you there, but God is able. And you're permitted to reject God if you desire. Cheers!

Good grief mate, I suggest you stop using those websites. I just had a read your Migration link and it is utter nonsense, I'm sure a few of my brain cells actually gave up and died. It makes no attempt to actually explain how anything happened apart from a few if's and maybe's.

Didn't this bit worry you?

The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

At least they did a bit of research on the ancestry of dogs as the illustration shows -

 

[Luke17:37]

I believe in a literal Bible. Still I am a dispensationalist, according to Moses a day is 1,000 years.

Joshua, did you read the entire post I wrote to the other Joshua? How do you explain Exodus 20:11? How do you explain year reference in day 4 when God created the heavenly bodies

I believe in a literal Bible. Still I am a dispensationalist, according to Moses a day is 1,000 years.

Hi Joshua. Did you read my whole post to the other Joshua? How do you explain Exodus 20:11? How do you explain the "year" reference God made on the day He created the heavenly bodies? How do you explain sin, it's penalty, and the substitutionary death of Jesus? Can you explain a long age view without putting death before Adam?

It sounds like you have a non-literal definition of literal.

Joshua, refusing to believe Genesis about the straightforward creation by God and the worldwide flood provides a nice foundation for rejecting the literal, bodily return of Jesus Christ.

And in the same passage talking about people who reject creation and the flood, there is a verse the same take out of context.

2 Peter 3:3-9
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

What is wrong with believing God created as He said, in six literal days (evening, morning, night, day, first, second, etc.)? Is your concept of God that He is too weak to do it? Too weak that He had to take millions of years? Too weak that He couldn't create good things to start with, that He had to have death assist in the creation process and then pin it on Adam?

 

[The Cadet]

You can start with this: https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/flood-geology/

A 14-minute long video from Answers in Genesis that starts with a blatant falsehood in the very first frame? Look, I'm sorry, but Answers in Genesis is not a reliable or trustworthy source. They state outright in their statement of faith that they cannot and will not ever accept any evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs, and as a result, the list of falsehoods they've regurgitated is fairly long. So I'm not going to spend 14 minutes listening to one of their videos unless you're actually interested in a thorough analysis in it, and are likely to change your mind if errors are shown in your position. If you would like to bring up specific arguments therein, feel free to summarize them in your own words, or offer specific timestamps, and I will look at those particular claims.

To explain what I mean by "blatant falsehood", the claim that the present is not the key to the past is simply absurd. Without the untenable assumption that the basic laws of the universe were fundamentally different in the past (in which case Last Thursdayism is a completely viable position), we can infer from evidence in the present that certain things must have happened in the past. Not only are there numerous scientific disciplines (geology, paleontology, vulcanology, climatology genealogy) that rest on such conclusions, but our entire legal system is built around this. If I were to, say, brutally stab Mr. Ham 37 times in the chest with no witnesses present, would that just mean there's no way to determine that I was the culprit? Of course not, because the present is the key to the past, and we use the present to determine things about the past all the time.

There are deeply technical videos available from people like Dr. Andrew Snelling if you are legitimately interested in an answer.

Dr. Andrew Snelling is an odd case. Have you ever looked over his research in the peer-reviewed literature? Looking at it, you'd never know that he was a young-earth creationist. Or maybe there's just two Andrew Snellings with the same degree and the same address. I'm surprised they share an address; I wouldn't think they'd be on speaking terms.

Concerning animal migration:
https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/migration/how-did-animals-spread-from-where-ark-landed/

It seems to me that this article ignores some rather significant problems.

For one, they're expecting that every single animal in the world is the product of rampant inbreeding. This doesn't work for two reasons. Firstly, because this leads to an ever-shrinking pool of genetic diversity and genetic defects, and secondly, because this would imply a level of genetic diversity within species that is proportional to that species's rate of reproduction. This is not what we observe. Instead, we observe things like incredibly sparse genetic diversity within Cheetahs and Elephant Seals, genetic diversity that we can track back to bottlenecks in the population. This should not be possible if there was a mere 2 individuals.

For two, its explanations are completely ad-hoc, and not well-thought-out. There's no serious attempt to explain such things. "There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents." Yes, and how long does it take for a log to travel, unpowered, from one side of the ocean to the other? Were the animals solely native to South America fed manna from heaven, or what? And why in the world would we expect such logs to spend a long time floating on the ocean in such a convenient way?

Josh McDowell is just one man who researched the resurrection to try to prove it false. He ended up believing it to be true because "the evidence demands a verdict" (that's the name of one of his books, a very detailed examination of the evidence for the resurrection and all counter arguments).

If you're interested, Infidels essentially has a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction of his book that tears it to shreds.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

 

[Luke17:37]

Good grief mate, I suggest you stop using those websites. I just had a read your Migration link and it is utter nonsense, I'm sure a few of my brain cells actually gave up and died. It makes no attempt to actually explain how anything happened apart from a few if's and maybe's.

Didn't this bit worry you?

The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

At least they did a bit of research on the ancestry of dogs as the illustration shows -

Since we can't do time travel, the only thing anyone can do is make hypotheses. I happen to believe the Bible is true and I don't see anything that denies it. I just see lots of people who believe the Bible isn't true and see the world in a different way.

That illustration is simple so anyone can understand. If you are too sophisticated, read or watch more technical material. They have a lot more if you legitimately search. Your brain cells won't die that fast.

 

[dad]

Make up your mind. Are your beliefs grounded in the word of God or in scripture? We know that with all of the flaws that it has that scripture is not the "word of God". Is seems in reality that you are just terribly confused.

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blashemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

 

[Luke17:37]

A 14-minute long video from Answers in Genesis that starts with a blatant falsehood in the very first frame? Look, I'm sorry, but Answers in Genesis is not a reliable or trustworthy source. They state outright in their statement of faith that they cannot and will not ever accept any evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs, and as a result, the list of falsehoods they've regurgitated is fairly long. So I'm not going to spend 14 minutes listening to one of their videos unless you're actually interested in a thorough analysis in it, and are likely to change your mind if errors are shown in your position. If you would like to bring up specific arguments therein, feel free to summarize them in your own words, or offer specific timestamps, and I will look at those particular claims.

To explain what I mean by "blatant falsehood", the claim that the present is not the key to the past is simply absurd. Without the untenable assumption that the basic laws of the universe were fundamentally different in the past (in which case Last Thursdayism is a completely viable position), we can infer from evidence in the present that certain things must have happened in the past. Not only are there numerous scientific disciplines (geology, paleontology, vulcanology, climatology genealogy) that rest on such conclusions, but our entire legal system is built around this. If I were to, say, brutally stab Mr. Ham 37 times in the chest with no witnesses present, would that just mean there's no way to determine that I was the culprit? Of course not, because the present is the key to the past, and we use the present to determine things about the past all the time.



Dr. Andrew Snelling is an odd case. Have you ever looked over his research in the peer-reviewed literature? Looking at it, you'd never know that he was a young-earth creationist. Or maybe there's just two Andrew Snellings with the same degree and the same address. I'm surprised they share an address; I wouldn't think they'd be on speaking terms.



It seems to me that this article ignores some rather significant problems.

For one, they're expecting that every single animal in the world is the product of rampant inbreeding. This doesn't work for two reasons. Firstly, because this leads to an ever-shrinking pool of genetic diversity and genetic defects, and secondly, because this would imply a level of genetic diversity within species that is proportional to that species's rate of reproduction. This is not what we observe. Instead, we observe things like incredibly sparse genetic diversity within Cheetahs and Elephant Seals, genetic diversity that we can track back to bottlenecks in the population. This should not be possible if there was a mere 2 individuals.

For two, its explanations are completely ad-hoc, and not well-thought-out. There's no serious attempt to explain such things. "There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents." Yes, and how long does it take for a log to travel, unpowered, from one side of the ocean to the other? Were the animals solely native to South America fed manna from heaven, or what? And why in the world would we expect such logs to spend a long time floating on the ocean in such a convenient way?



If you're interested, Infidels essentially has a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction of his book that tears it to shreds.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

I didn't think you were legitimately interested. They and I won't apologize for believing the Bible is true. That's my starting point for everything. Your's might be that the Bible is not true or that there is no God or something along those lines. Unless you are willing to challenge your assumption, there's no point. I'm not willing to challenge mine, but that's because I've walked 31 years with Jesus, I've heard how the Bible provides a reasonable explanation for the way things are, and I know He's true without a shadow of a doubt. I will never deny Him, even if someone threatens to behead me.

How do you explain the fact that people wear clothes?

How do you explain the seven day week?

How do explain the presence of comets "millions of years" (or billions) when every time they pass the sun, they shrink?

How do you explain a universe when the earth would have been inside the sun at the rate it is burning today?

How do you explain the information influx needed to make incredibly complex biological systems with inter-dependent features?

 

[dad]

God makes it clear who does and who does not represent Him so that there is no confusion. People are without excuse. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

I agree that His love and miracles and prophets and creation have been here, and demand respect.

 

[Jimmy D]

How do you explain the fact that people wear clothes?

I'd guess that they migrated to different climates and felt a bit chilly. Here's quite an interesting article.....

The earliest dyed fibres have been found in a prehistoric cave in the Republic of Georgia and date back to 36,000 BC.

 

[Luke17:37]

I'd guess that they migrated to different climates and felt a bit chilly. Here's quite an interesting article.....

The earliest dyed fibres have been found in a prehistoric cave in the Republic of Georgia and date back to 36,000 BC.

Everyone? What about the people who live near the equator where it's always hot?

 

[Loudmouth]

Mt. St. Helens a recent catastrophic event that involved a liquid (lava). What more do you want? If you want demonstratable science, you'll steer clear of non-testable hypotheses such as evolution.

29 tests that evolution has passed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you are truly interested in truth and seek it with all your heart, you will meet Him some day. He is Jesus, who rose from the dead on the third day. There many witnesses to His death, there was an empty tomb, no dead body, and over 500 witnesses who saw him alive at one time, many of whom were tortured to death rather than recant their faith in the risen Jesus. Many eyewitnesses were still alive when the gospels were recorded and shared. If his enemies could have produced his body, they would have. If the eyewitnesses accounts' were lies, the community (Israel) would have ripped it to shreds.

If you are truly seeking the truth, would you believe in stories written in books that aren't supported by evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blashemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

Thank you for admitting that you did such things. But why do you think that your repenting for your sins will make me happy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since we can't do time travel, the only thing anyone can do is make hypotheses.

You stopped a bit prematurely. We can also gather evidence that the past events produced, and then use that evidence to test our hypotheses. Perhaps you have heard of this. It is called the scientific method.

I happen to believe the Bible is true and I don't see anything that denies it.

What would you have to see? What characteristics would a geologic formation need to have in order to falsify a recent global flood? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify separate creation events?

Or is this a case of a dogmatic belief, where no evidence will ever change your mind?

That illustration is simple so anyone can understand. If you are too sophisticated, read or watch more technical material. They have a lot more if you legitimately search. Your brain cells won't die that fast.

I think we would all suggest that you use a real scientific resource, not a creationist webpage that is full of misinformation.