If you’ve ever wondered whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ stands up to inspection and rigorous testing, you’re not alone. Scientists and historians have long worked to review the facts surrounding the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and reported appearances of Jesus after his death.

How do the records hold up?

Is there proof that bridges faith and reason?

These are the questions we’ll explore.

By the end, we’ll have a clear view of what modern evidence tells us about the resurrection of Jesus. Along the way, we’ll unpack what this means not just for Christians but for anyone seeking answers to one of life’s biggest questions.

The Story of the Resurrection of Jesus: A Summary

The story of the resurrection of Jesus begins with his crucifixion. After enduring immense suffering, Jesus was executed on a Roman cross and confirmed dead by a soldier who pierced Jesus’s side with a spear and noted a sudden flow of blood separated from water (John 19:34–37). His body was then taken down and placed in a tomb, secured by a heavy stone, enclosed with a Roman seal, and guarded by a Roman cohort of soldiers to prevent tampering. For his followers, it felt like hope had been shattered.

But three days later, everything changed.

Early on the third day, women who went to the tomb to anoint his body found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty.

News spread quickly among his disciples, and soon after, they began reporting appearances of the resurrected Christ. These encounters weren’t just fleeting moments. Jesus was seen walking, speaking, and eating with his followers over several weeks.

Jesus’s resurrection is central to the Christian faith. It’s not just a story of victory over death but the foundation for hope, salvation, and eternal life.

What makes the event even more fascinating is its historical significance. The resurrection is not simply a matter of belief—it’s a historical claim with accounts, evidence, and implications that have both intrigued and affected people for centuries. Whether you’re revisiting this or hearing it for the first time, its impact has been undeniable.

The Key Elements in Question

When examining the resurrection of Jesus Christ, several key elements stand out that are foundational to the story as well as points of debate among scholars, skeptics, and believers.

Here’s a close look at the points and why they are so heavily scrutinized.

The Crucifixion of Jesus

The crucifixion of Jesus is a historical event widely accepted by historians—its purpose and implications are what spark significant debate.

Why did Jesus endure such a painful death?

Christians believe his crucifixion was an act of atonement for humanity’s sins, noting that Jesus was both man and God and therefore was capable of taking upon himself the full atonement penalty for the sins of all humans who have ever lived or will live.

However, skeptics question the theological significance, viewing it as merely a political execution. The physical and historical details of the crucifixion, such as Roman customs and medical evidence of fatal injuries, are often discussed when verifying this event.

Especially significant is that in Psalm 22, King David predicted (a thousand years ahead) the events of Jesus’s crucifixion in precise detail, and even the words Jesus spoke and the words of mockery hurled at him while he was on the cross.

The Burial

The burial of Jesus is another point of debate. According to historical accounts, his body was placed in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, sealed with a large stone, and guarded. While most agree Jesus was buried, debates arise about how secure the tomb truly was and whether the disciples could have removed the body.

The tomb was guarded by a Roman cohort. A Roman guard cohort ranges from 16 to 200 armed soldiers. The tomb was secured with a Roman seal, and the penalty for a Roman cohort soldier permitting anyone to break a Roman seal was crucifixion. Therefore, historians, both Christian and non-Christian, give no credence to the claim that the militarily untrained disciples could have overcome a Roman guard cohort and broken the Roman seal.

These details are key, as they set the stage for the claim of the empty tomb.

Empty Tomb

The empty tomb is the centerpiece of the story of Jesus’s resurrection. Supporters argue that no logical explanation other than resurrection could account for it. Skeptics, on the other hand, suggest scenarios such as body theft or the tomb being wrongly identified.

This point remains a heated topic because—if true—the empty tomb validates the claim that Jesus is risen.

Appearances of Jesus After His Death

Reports of Jesus appearing after his resurrection add more to the debate. The Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) tell of many times Jesus was seen alive after his death, sometimes by one person and other times by groups of people. The apostle Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15 that 500 eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Jesus. While Christians see these as clear evidence of Jesus risen from the dead, skeptics argue they may have been visions, hallucinations, or later fabrications. The reliability of eyewitness accounts is central to this point.

Implications About the Existence and Character Attributes of God

If the resurrection of Jesus truly happened, it would mean there is a God who exists and who intervenes in human history. It also sheds light on the character of this God: loving, just, and all-powerful. These attributes are debated even in light of a resurrection, as skeptics question whether a supernatural explanation is necessary or credible—but who else in all of history has ever made the claim to have risen from the dead?

Implications About Judgment, Salvation, Heaven, and Hell

For Christians, the resurrection has deep meanings for salvation and eternity. It validates Jesus’s authority to forgive sins and promise eternal life. It demonstrates that God has the power to raise anyone from the dead. It also showcases the reality of judgment, heaven, and hell. These topics remain controversial, particularly in conversations about the fairness of divine judgment and the existence of eternal reward or punishment.

The Fundamental Doctrine of Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:17)

The apostle Paul emphasized that the resurrection isn’t just one part of Christianity—it’s foundational. He wrote, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” Without the resurrection, Christianity loses its base camp of hope and salvation. People often debate whether this doctrine is rooted in historical facts or just religious belief.

Takeaway: On each of these points, the resurrection of Christ Jesus continues to be an intriguing subject with plenty of discussion and debate. Each detail asks us to think about not just the historical facts but also what they mean for what we believe about God, humanity, and life itself.

The Proof of Jesus’s Resurrection

When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible serves as the key source of evidence. From ancient prophecies to direct witness accounts, Scripture provides a compelling narrative. Let’s examine each in detail.

Biblical Evidence

The Bible as an Inerrant, Authoritative Source

For Christians, the Bible is more than an ancient text; it’s an authoritative and inerrant (incapable of being wrong) source of truth. It documents the story of the resurrection of Jesus with extraordinary detail and with building consistency across multiple books. Critics may question the Bible’s reliability, but countless translations, manuscripts, and historical studies support its preservation and accuracy. Believers see this as critical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred.

Old Testament Prophecies

The concept of Jesus’s resurrection doesn’t begin in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains numerous prophecies foretelling the Messiah’s suffering, death, and restoration. In Psalm 16, God promises that his “Holy One” would not see decay, and Isaiah 53 describes a suffering servant who would triumph over death. These events described centuries before Jesus align with his life, death, and resurrection, which adds to Christians’ confidence.

Gospel Accounts

The Gospels are where we find detailed accounts of Jesus’s life. Each of the four gospel writers describe the empty tomb story and appearances of the Lord Jesus after he died. However, the Gospel of Mark often sparks debate. Critics note that the earliest manuscripts of Mark end abruptly after the women discover the empty tomb, leaving out appearances of Jesus.

While some scholars view this as a possible limitation to Mark’s account, others suggest it highlights the resurrection’s mysterious and awe-inspiring nature. When taken together, the Gospel accounts paint a full picture of the resurrection.

Eyewitness Accounts of Jesus Risen

The Bible provides numerous eyewitness accounts where Jesus appeared alive after the crucifixion and his body was buried. Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and even groups of people claim to have seen him alive after his death. These witnesses describe encounters that include personal conversations, shared meals, and even physical touch. For many, these interactions are too vivid and consistent to dismiss as hallucinations or fabrications.

Early Followers (Disciples, Paul, etc.)

The transformed lives of Jesus’s followers are a highly compelling piece of biblical evidence. Before the resurrection, many of the disciples struggled with fear and doubt. After encountering the resurrected Jesus Christ, they became bold proclaimers of the gospel, willing to face persecution and even death. All the apostles, except for John, were martyred on account of their conviction that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. John was exiled on account of his faith in the resurrected Christ.

Paul, a former persecutor of Christians, experienced a dramatic conversion after reportedly seeing Jesus. These radical changes point to a conviction in the truth of the resurrection.

Takeaway: The biblical evidence for the resurrection of Christ Jesus not only tells a powerful story but challenges us to consider its personal significance—if true. These texts, written by those who claimed firsthand knowledge or close connection to the events, remain at the center of debates still today.

Historical Evidence

Historical evidence offers a valuable layer of support for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Beyond the Bible, several accounts and records from ancient times provide interesting context and details. Let’s look at the key historical sources and their relevance.

Jewish History

Jewish historical records often serve as indirect evidence of the events surrounding Jesus’s life, death, and the claim of his resurrection. The Talmud, for example, mentions Jesus, acknowledging his existence and crucifixion, though from a critical perspective. While it disputes his divinity, these writings affirm Jesus as a real historical figure whose influence sparked significant movements.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also wrote about Jesus, specifically referencing his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and the continued devotion of his followers. Though his accounts are sometimes contested, they remain a significant non-Christian mention of Jesus in history with details that align with the Bible.

Roman History

Roman records also provide accounts of the time and context of the resurrection of Jesus. Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions the execution of “Christus” (Christ) under Pilate and the rapid growth of Christianity afterward. This corroborates the biblical timeline and the impact Jesus had on both his followers and society.

Also, the practice of crucifixion as a Roman punishment and the authority of Pilate add authenticity to the Gospel accounts. Another Roman historian, Suetonius, mentions early Christians causing disturbances in Rome, further illustrating the boldness of Christianity’s expansion—largely attributed to the belief in Christ’s resurrection and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other Historians and Accounts

Several other historians and writers add to the historical evidence. For example, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, mocked Christians for their belief in eternal life and worship of “that crucified sophist.” While written to ridicule, his commentary indirectly confirms the early belief in the resurrection.

Additionally, writings by Pliny the Younger describe Christian worship practices, including singing hymns to Christ as God, suggesting an early and widespread belief in Jesus risen from the dead. Though these accounts don’t confirm the event itself, they provide valuable snapshots of how the resurrection and its implications reached and affected ancient societies.

Testimonies and Martyrdom of the Apostles

The unwavering belief of Jesus’s apostles is arguably the most striking historical evidence. These men, who initially fled and hid after his crucifixion, emerged shortly after claiming to have seen Jesus Christ and his resurrected body. They faced persecution, imprisonment, painful punishment, and martyrdom, yet none renounced their testimony.

For many, the apostles’ willingness to die for their belief shines a heavy spotlight on their conviction that the resurrection is true. Key figures like Peter and Paul, both of whom died under Roman execution, are examples of this steadfast commitment.

Takeaway: Jewish history, Roman documentation, external accounts, and the enduring testimony of the apostles show surprising support for the resurrection of Jesus against the historical authenticity debate.

Scientific Review of the Facts & Evidence

A meaningful exploration of the resurrection of Jesus requires examining it through a scientific lens. While science often deals with what can be observed, it does have methods for evaluating historical claims, such as analyzing forensic evidence, applying textual criticism, and assessing probabilities.

How Science Approaches Historical Claims

Historians and scientists who seek to verify historical events rely on several methods:

• Forensic Analysis — investigates physical and circumstantial evidence
• Textual Criticism — evaluates whether ancient documents have been accurately preserved and transmitted
• Probability Assessments — helps measure how likely specific events are, given the available evidence

Although science can’t directly replicate unique events like a resurrection, these methods provide value into whether the claims surrounding Jesus are reasonable and supported. Modern scientific methods and technology continue to provide new ways to analyze historical claims, including the resurrection of Jesus.

The Crucifixion of Jesus

Scientific and historical evidence strongly supports Jesus’s crucifixion. Roman practices of capital punishment, described in historical texts, align closely with the Gospel narratives. Medical examinations of crucifixion also validate the lethal nature of such punishments, emphasizing how Roman soldiers ensured death was the result.

The details are precise and provide credibility to the claim that Jesus truly died on a cross.

The Burial

The burial of Jesus is another point where textual and historical evidence connect. Ancient Jewish burial customs, as described in Scripture, are consistent with the account of Jesus being laid in a tomb. The involvement of Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the Jewish council, adds a layer of plausibility since he fits historical norms for providing a proper burial.

Skeptics argue about the tomb’s security, but the details reflect cultural and procedural accuracy.

Empty Tomb

The claim of an empty tomb is supported by an absence of evidence—in this case, Jesus’s body. Science evaluates such claims by examining alternative scenarios. Could the body have been stolen or misplaced? Probability assessments suggest challenges in both scenarios, The Roman and Jewish leaders held all the power. All they had to do to put an end to belief in the resurrection of Jesus was to produce the body.

Additionally, the fact that women were recorded as the first witnesses to the empty tomb adds credibility. At the time, a woman’s testimony was not highly regarded, making it unlikely that writers would fabricate such details as it likely would have been viewed as untrustworthy.

Probability of the Accurate Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies

The Old Testament contains over 300 prophecies about the Messiah, including those predicting his death and resurrection. The probability of one person fulfilling even a small number of these prophecies is astonishingly high. For example, statistical studies estimate that fulfilling just eight specific prophecies would be exponentially improbable—that is, without divine intervention.

Appearances of Jesus After His Death

The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses who claimed to see the resurrected Jesus has long been a topic of interest. Science often questions the psychological validity of such claims, examining if they could be hallucinations or groupthink. However, the consistency of the accounts, including physical interactions such as Jesus eating with his followers, challenges these alternative explanations.

The radical transformation of witnesses—such as Paul’s sudden conversion from persecutor to preacher—further supports belief in the appearances as genuine experiences.

While some parts of the resurrection of Jesus exceed scientific explanation, using these methods to analyze the claims provides noteworthy insights. From historical consistency to probability models, the evidence draws both curiosity and reflection on one of history’s most significant events.

Jesus Is Risen: What It Means For You

The resurrection of Jesus is more than a historical or theological event—it’s a truth with profound implications for your life and the world around you. Here, we’ll explore how faith and evidence work together and what this incredible event means for individuals and communities.

Scientific Evidence and Faith Together

Belief in Jesus’s resurrection doesn’t require blind faith. The evidence we’ve explored—from historical accounts to fulfilled prophecies and transformed lives—provides a rational foundation for faith. Science asks us to consider facts and probabilities, while faith invites us to trust in something greater. Together, they show that belief in a risen Jesus is both reasonable and rooted in revelation that creates a harmony between reason and spirituality.

Jesus is the Resurrection

At the heart of Christianity is the powerful statement that Jesus is the resurrection. His victory over death isn’t just about an event in history—it’s a declaration of his identity as the source of life itself (see the Gospel of John). By overcoming the grave, Jesus showed that the resurrection promise isn’t just for him but for all who believe.

“I Am the Resurrection and the Life”

When Jesus proclaimed, “I am the resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25), he offered hope that death doesn’t have the final word. This statement is deeply personal and profound—as we all will, someday, die. It means that through him, eternal life is possible, and we’re invited to experience a relationship with God that extends beyond this life, trusting in a promise that death is not the end.

The Significance of the Resurrection in Your Life

The resurrection brings hope for renewal and transformation. It reminds us that no matter how dark life’s circumstances may feel, there is always the possibility of new beginnings. It also challenges us to live with purpose, knowing that our choices and actions carry eternal weight. For believers, the story of Christ’s resurrection is an anchor of hope, courage, and joy in the face of life.

Significance of the Resurrection for All Humans and Human Societies

The meaning behind the resurrection of Jesus reaches far beyond individuals. It has redefined cultural values, inspired movements for justice, and shaped ethics in countless societies. It challenges humanity to see life as sacred, encouraging actions grounded in love, compassion, and forgiveness—this is where this worldview has come from, even if skeptics resist admitting it.

The resurrection also offers a universal message of hope—that death doesn’t have the last word and that redemption is always possible in true belief, faith, and proclamation. The redemption that Jesus Christ offers to every human being is forgiveness of all their sins and offenses against God, against themselves, and against every other creature on the condition that they acknowledge their sinfulness before God, repent of their sins, and put Jesus Christ in charge of their life, recognizing that he knows what is best for their life.

The resurrection of Christ is a story of triumph and transformation. Whether viewed through the lens of faith, science, or personal reflection, it speaks to the deepest questions of life and gives us a reason for hope that stretches into eternity with a promise that life has meaning, and through it, we have meaning and value.

The post Resurrection of Jesus: A Scientific Review of the <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

I was with my family for a vacation on the Big Island of Hawaii. We happened upon an out-of-the-way swimming spot that was a natural pool free from waves because of the sand bars. We later learned from locals that sea turtles were attracted to this spot to feed due to the calm waters. As my family enjoyed a swim in the pool, we suddenly found ourselves in the middle of a large group of green sea turtles. We were of no concern to them as they munched algae off the rocks. They fed for well over an hour before swimming back to the open ocean. 

We could hardly believe what had happened.

Sea Turtles
The sea turtles found in Hawaii are green sea turtles. They are among seven species of sea turtles alive today that include: green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, olive ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, and the flatback, which is found only in Australia.  

Sadly, all sea turtle species are endangered. If these animals are lost, not only would their absence result in the loss of beautiful and majestic creatures, but it would also harm ecosystems in the ocean organized around seagrass beds—part of the sea turtle diet.

Life scientists want to understand sea turtles to help them flourish. Part of this understanding involves learning about their natural history. Unfortunately, the fossil record is scant and offers little help. 

For this reason, the recent recovery of a fossilized carapace (shell) from the Chagres Formation of Panama by a research team from Colombia has generated excitement.¹ This formation dates to the Upper Miocene (11.5 to 5.3 million years ago). The newly discovered specimen is a member of the genus Leipochelys, which includes the Kemp’s ridley and olive ridley species. The carapace displays differences compared to extant members of Leipochelys, and may well represent an ancient species of sea turtle that no longer exists. 

Soft Tissue Finds
The Chagres Formation has also yielded fossil fish and cetaceans. These fossils are extremely well preserved. For this reason, the researchers decided to examine the carapace fossil for micro-anatomical features such as cells and blood vessels. 

Using EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) treatment, the researchers were able to remove the mineral component from a small piece of the fossil carapace.  

They could hardly believe what happened next.

They discovered preserved blood vessels, osteocytes, and collagen fibers. Some of the osteocytes have a small oval structure in their interiors that resembles the cell’s nucleus. And some of these oval structures stained when treated with a compound that detects DNA. 

Though not a first—the discovery of remnants of osteocytes and blood vessels, along with the possible preservation of DNA fragments, has been reported for only two dinosaur fossils—this find is still exciting. This turtle specimen gives researchers a window into the biodiversity that existed when the Isthmus of Panama formed about 3 million years ago. And it adds to the growing excitement about the potential of fossils to yield soft tissue remnants. 

Most paleontologists are thrilled at the prospects of retrieving soft tissue materials from fossil remains. These discoveries add another dimension to their understanding of the biology of Earth’s past life and the natural history of extant organisms. 

Soft Tissues in Fossils and Implications for the Age of the Earth
Most young-earth creationists (YECs) are also excited about the recovery of soft tissue remnants from fossil remains, but for a different reason. They argue that these discoveries are evidence that the fossil record can only be a few thousand years old—not millions of years. There’s no way that soft tissues and the biomolecules that comprise them could survive that long, they reason. If so, then it means the results of radiometric measurements must be flawed if they return an age date for fossils on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. They conclude that the best way to interpret the fossil record is that it’s the result of a global deluge that occurred a few thousand years ago. 

On the surface, this argument carries a bit of a punch. How can soft tissue materials survive for millions of years?

Means of Soft Tissue Preservation
As an old-earth creationist (OEC) who is persuaded that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has been present on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, this provocative question prompted me to write the book Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth. It should be of no surprise that I demonstrate in the book that radiometric dating is reliable. The fossils yielding soft tissues are truly tens to hundreds of million years in age. Thus, there must be some means for soft tissue materials to endure. And there is. Before I describe the general mechanism for survival of these materials, it’s important to understand what’s been recovered from fossil remains. 

YECs give the impression that the soft tissue materials are not only original but intact and unaltered. This misrepresentation is unfortunate. Paleontologists have recovered remnants of soft tissue materials that have experienced diagenesis (physical and chemical changes that occur during the conversion of sediment to sedimentary rock) during the fossilization process. The remnants of cells and blood vessels discovered by paleontologists in the turtle carapace have retained their original physical shape, but during diagenesis they’ve been chemically altered—with the breakdown products of the original biomolecules still harbored in the cell-like and blood-vessel-like structures. 

YECs rightly argue that biomolecules (and the soft tissues that they form) readily undergo degradation by several distinct mechanisms. But life scientists have discovered several previously unrecognized protective mechanisms. These mechanisms extend the time that the diagenetically altered biomolecules survive. (For details of both types of mechanisms, see Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth and the articles listed in the Resources section.) It’s a competition between degradation and preservation.

These protective mechanisms delay the complete disappearance of the biomolecules that form soft tissue structures long enough for them to be entombed by the mineralization process that occurs during fossilization. This entombment entraps any remaining organic materials. And, once entombed, the breakdown of these materials significantly slows down. In some instances, the degradation process might be altogether arrested. 

For this fossil, the race between disappearance and entombment appears to have been won by entombment for the biomolecules and microanatomical structures that made up the soft tissues of the fossil carapace. The researchers foresaw this victory because the carapace, along with other fossils from the Chagres Formation, are so well preserved. 

More Soft Tissue Protection from the Shell
The mineral components (hydroxyapatite) of the bone that contributes to the turtle’s shell structures offer protection from degradation. The mineral matrix surrounds osteocytes. These cells reside in spaces inside the bone called lacunae. These openings in the bone form when cells become trapped within the bone matrix that they help produce. (It is sort of like the person who paints themselves into a corner.) The blood vessels (which are remarkably durable structures designed to withstand high pressures as the heart pumps blood through them) that permeate the turtle shell bone are also protected by the mineral matrix during fossilization. In addition to hydroxyapatite, bone also contains the protein collagen. Collagen is a highly durable fibrous material. Like osteocytes and blood vessels, these tough protein fibers are protected from breakdown by their interactions with the hydroxyapatite of the matrix. 

The bottom line: There are good explanations for how collagen fragments, and the remnants of osteocytes, and blood vessels could endure for 5 to 10 million years in the fossil carapace. And with these explanations, no good reasons remain to think that soft tissue remnants evince a young Earth. It may be hard to believe what happened, but it looks like these majestic creatures were endowed with preservation properties that allow us to appreciate their design. 

Resources

Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth by Fazale Rana (book)

Responding to Young-Earth Critics

“Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

Mechanism of Soft Tissue Preservation

“Soft Tissue Preservation Mechanism Stabilizes the Case for Earth’s Antiquity” by Fazale Rana (article)

“How Can DNA Survive for 75 Million Years? Implications for the Age of the Earth” by Fazale Rana (article)

Recovery of a Wide Range of Soft Tissue Materials in Fossils

“What Dinosaur Soft Tissue Says about the Earth’s Age” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does the Recovery of Oils from a Fossilized Bird Evince a Young Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Ancient Mouse Fur Discovery with Mighty Implications” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Is Fossil-Associated Cholesterol a Biomarker for a Young Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Can Keratin in Feathers Survive for Millions of Years?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Do Fossilized Ink Sacs Discolor the Case for an Old Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Science News Flash: An Old-Earth Perspective on Dinosaur Feathers Preserved in Amber” by Fazale Rana (article)

Detection of Carbon-14 in Fossils

“Does Radiocarbon Dating Prove a Young Earth? A Response to Vernon R. Cupps” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Edwin-Alberto Cadena, Carlos De Gracia, and Diego A. Combita-Romero, “An Upper Miocene Marine Turtle from Panama that Preserves Osteocytes with Potential DNA,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23, no.1 (September 28, 2023): e2254356, doi:10.1080/02724634.2023.2254356.

The post Do Turtle Soft Tissue Fossil Remnants Provide <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for a Young Earth? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

M dwarfs are numerous, comprising 70% of all the nuclear-burning stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.¹ For example, among the 39 nuclear-burning stars within 13.5 light-years of the Sun, 30 are M dwarfs.² What also boosts NASA’s interest in planets orbiting M dwarfs (see figure) is this: the James Webb Space Telescope can determine the atmospheric molecular features of such planets.

Figure: Artist’s Conception of a Planet with Two Moons Orbiting an M-Dwarf Star
Credit: NASA/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics/David A. Aguilar  

Previously Known M Dwarf Planets’ Habitability Problems
As noted in previous Today’s New Reason to Believe articles,  astronomers have already identified major challenges to the habitability of planets orbiting M dwarfs.³ The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of five such obstacles, for readers’ convenience.

The first and perhaps most severe problem is that for planets orbiting M dwarfs, the liquid water and ultraviolet habitability zones do not overlap. Life requires both, simultaneously. Without incident ultraviolet radiation of the just-right wavelength and intensity, several life-essential biochemical reactions cannot occur. At the same time, too much incident ultraviolet radiation or incident ultraviolet radiation at a too short wavelength is deadly for life. For host stars with effective temperatures lower than 4,600 Kelvin, the outer edge of the ultraviolet habitability zone is closer to the star than the inner edge of the liquid water habitability zone.⁴ All nuclear-burning M dwarfs have effective temperatures lower than 3,800 Kelvin.⁵  

The second problem is an electrical one. Rocky or terrestrial planets with an atmosphere thicker than 1% of Earth’s and an orbital distance less than 90% of Earth’s distance from the Sun will have an electrically charged atmosphere of more than several volts. Such a strong atmospheric electric field in combination with ultraviolet radiation from the host star will completely dry the planet’s atmosphere and surface over the course of a few tens of millions of years or less.⁶ For a planet orbiting an M dwarf to possess life-essential liquid water, its orbital distance must be less than 25% of Earth’s distance from the Sun. In such a near orbit, that planet will quickly become bone dry.

A third problem is tidal locking. Since M dwarfs are relatively dim, their planets must orbit closer than 25% of Earth’s orbital distance from the Sun to have any hope of possessing liquid water. However, the tidal force that a star exerts on such closely orbiting planets is extreme. A planet orbiting an M dwarf close enough to possibly possess surface liquid water will be tidally locked,⁷ with one of its hemispheres always facing its star (just as one hemisphere of the Moon always faces Earth). Thus, one hemisphere will be blistering hot while the other will be freezing cold. The temperature difference between the planet’s hot side and cold side will exceed 400°C (720°F). While liquid water could perhaps exist in the planet’s twilight zone (the transition zone at the edge of stellar illumination), atmospheric transport would move water to the coldest parts of the planet where it would freeze and remain permanently unavailable for life.⁸

A fourth problem is that all M dwarfs emit powerful ultraviolet and x-ray flares. For even the calmest M dwarfs orbiting within the liquid water habitability zone, the flux of ultraviolet and x-rays (soft and hard) will be more than sufficient to erode away any water and carbon dioxide that might exist in its atmospheres, oceans, and lakes.⁹

The fifth problem is that planets orbiting M dwarfs are doomed to suffer a catastrophic greenhouse threshold event. For a planet to hold surface water during its star’s nuclear-burning phase, it must also possess water during the star’s pre-nuclear-burning phase, also known as the pre-main-sequence (PMS) phase. An M dwarf is more than 60 times brighter at the beginning of its PMS phase than at the beginning of its nuclear-burning phase. This increased brightness translates to more heat, which vaporizes water in the atmosphere and on the surface of any of the M dwarf’s planets. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Consequently, more water vapor leads to a still higher surface temperature that causes yet more liquid water to be transformed into water vapor, producing even higher surface temperatures. Eventually, so much water vapor builds up in the planet’s troposphere that it escapes into the planet’s stratosphere. There the M dwarf’s radiation dissociates the water vapor, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The hydrogen escapes into interplanetary space. In short order, this hydrogen escape results in the complete desiccation of the planet.¹⁰ 

Newly Discovered Habitability Challenges
A team of four astronomers headed by Ana Lobo has poured even more cold water—and hot— both figuratively and literally, on the possibility of life on planets orbiting M dwarfs,  particularly for life in the twilight zones of any tidally locked planets there.¹¹ Lobo’s team demonstrated that even if a planet orbiting an M dwarf were somehow able to survive the PMS phase with some water remaining, all that water would either be permanently trapped on the planet’s cold nightside or permanently evaporated into interplanetary space.

A second research effort learned the effects of stellar flaring activity on habitability. While no telescope is dedicated to studying ultraviolet and x-ray flares from M dwarfs, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) completed an all-sky survey mission between April 2018 and July 2020. (TESS is currently conducting a second all-sky survey.) From that survey, 1,276 two-minute-cadence light curves are available for each of 200,000 preselected targets. 

A team of astronomers led by Beate Stelzer identified 112 M dwarfs among these TESS targets bright enough to reveal the number and intensity of their flaring events.¹⁶ Stelzer’s team found that 2,500+ optical flare events had occurred within the light curves of these 112 M dwarfs. Given the existing evidence that nearly every optical flare is associated with an x-ray flare, the team concluded that M dwarf x-ray flares occur more frequently than anticipated. These more frequent x-ray flares pose more serious risks than previously acknowledged to the erosion of the atmospheres and hydrospheres of planets orbiting within the liquid water habitability zones of M dwarfs.

A third team of twenty astronomers, led by Kevin France, investigated this scenario: a planet orbiting a 10-billion-year-old M dwarf experiences unlikely late tectonic events that release gases to form a second-generation atmosphere.¹³ The motivation for their investigation was strong observational evidence that M dwarfs exhibit high stellar activity throughout their PMS phase and during the first 5 billion years of their nuclear-burning phase. France’s team hoped that stellar activity levels for old M dwarfs might be low enough for life to possibly exist on planets orbiting these stars. This team’s observations of Bernard’s Star (GJ 699), a 10-billion-year-old M dwarf, showed that the fraction of time the star was in a state of high-flare activity was roughly 25%. Evidently, even very old M dwarfs have more flaring activity than the existence of life would require. Life needs atmospheric stability that flaring disrupts. 

A fourth team of astronomers, led by Rodolfo Garcia, developed computer simulations of M dwarf star formation and of the thermal evolution of planets in their orbit.¹⁴ These computer models showed that if any such planet contains water during its star’s nuclear-burning phase, it will experience a runaway greenhouse phase during the star’s PMS phase. The team established that “if the planet has outgassed enough carbon dioxide during its runaway greenhouse phase, surface temperatures will be too high for outgassed water to condense and the planet will not be habitable.”¹⁵ They concluded that only if the planet begins with very little carbon dioxide and thereafter experiences almost no volcanism can there be any hope that during the nuclear-burning phase of its host star it will possess surface liquid water and possibly be habitable. A far more likely outcome, they demonstrated, is that rocky planets orbiting M dwarfs will “become Venus-like worlds with thick carbon dioxide atmospheres and no liquid water.¹⁶          

Magnetosphere Problem
Three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic models of the stellar winds emanating from nuclear-burning M dwarfs show that, for planets orbiting these stars in the liquid water habitability zone, the wind pressure on the planets would be 100–100,000 times greater than the solar wind pressure on Earth.¹⁷ This greater stellar wind pressure would compress any possibly existing magnetospheres around the planets to such a degree that erosion of water and carbon dioxide from the planets’ atmospheres, oceans, and lakes would be inevitable.

This magnetosphere compression is most intense when the M dwarf is in its first several million years of nuclear burning. It is exponentially more intense during the M dwarf’s PMS phase. M dwarfs spend a long time (0.1–1.1 billion years) in the PMS phase. During this phase, the emission of particles and radiation that sputter away the atmospheres and hydrospheres of any nearby planets is hundreds to thousands of times greater than at any time during the nuclear-burning phase. 

Another problem for life is that at the beginning of an M dwarf’s PMS phase, its brightness is at least 60 times greater than during its nuclear-burning phase. The relatively rapid dimming that occurs during the PMS phase rules out any realistic origin-of-life or survival-of-life scenario. Long before life can possibly originate or survive on a planet orbiting an M dwarf, resources essential for life are expelled from the planet.

Planets that form more distantly from an M dwarf and then later migrate into the liquid water habitable zone still face the problem of the collapsing magnetosphere problem. During an M dwarf’s PMS and early nuclear-burning phases, the danger zone for planetary magnetosphere compression extends far beyond the liquid water habitability zone. Furthermore, planetary migration models consistently demonstrate that planetary migration occurs early in the planetary system formation.¹⁸ For M dwarfs, it occurs long before the end of the PMS phase.

M Dwarf Planetary Systems as Candidates for Life?
For the past two decades, the quest to find habitable planets has focused almost entirely on planets orbiting M dwarf stars. Given the accumulation of evidence challenging the potential of M-dwarf-hosted planets as candidates for support of any kind of life for any length of time, the time to take M dwarf planets off the list seems to have come.

To be clear, astronomers would do well to continue the study of M dwarfs and their planets. However, research on these stars and planets will likely prove significantly more productive if habitability is not the driving factor behind the research.  

To date, astrobiologists have yet to find any evidence for the existence of life beyond Earth. Thus, astrobiology remains, in one sense, a data-free discipline. As the research focus on M dwarf planets repeatedly argues against their capacity for life support, a growing body of evidence shows that more than a dozen habitability zones must exist and overlap for life to possibly exist on a planet.¹⁹ Astronomical research has powerfully revealed that for a planet to be truly habitable it must be Earth or Earth’s twin. 

My book Designed to the Core provides a list and descriptions of the six best Earth analogues discovered to date.²⁰ The one that far outstrips the other five in matching Earth’s life-critical features is Venus. Yet, Venus is so far from possessing the features essential for the support of life that no research astronomer would classify Venus as habitable.

Despite these pessimistic prospects for finding life beyond Earth, astrobiologists are likely to find indisputable evidence for the remains of life beyond Earth. Thanks to millions of meteoritic impacts, Earth has been dispersing its microbes throughout the solar system. For example, over 200 kilograms of Earth’s surface material resides on every square kilometer of the lunar surface.²¹ Every kilogram of Earth’s surface material contains, on average, about 100 trillion microbes. While conditions on the Moon do not permit the survival of viable microbes, they do permit the preservation of microbial fossil remains. Therefore, instruments on board a spacecraft will soon be sufficiently sensitive to detect the remains of Earth-transported microbial life on the Moon, Mars, and other solar system bodies. 

The Value of a Null Result
In science research, a “no” is considered just as important and viable as a “yes.” Astrobiologists and laypeople need not be disappointed if future astronomical research affirms what astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said when he declared that, beyond Earth, “The universe is a deadly place.”²² This powerfully affirmed fact speaks about the exquisite design of our galaxy cluster, galaxy, star and planetary system, and even our moon to make possible our existence here on Earth. We can see and know that the existence and flourishing of human beings are made possible only by the One who created everything and invites us into a personal, never-ending love relationship.        

Endnotes

1. John J. Bochanski et al., “The Luminosity and Mass Functions of Low-Mass Stars in the Galactic Disk. II. The Field,” Astronomical Journal 139, no. 6 (June 2010): 2679–2699, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2679.
2. David Darling, “Nearest Stars,” https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/starsnearest.html.
3. Hugh Ross, “‘Electric Wind’ Becomes 9th Habitable Zone,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 4, 2016; Hugh Ross, “Overlap of Habitable Zones Gets Much Smaller,” Today’s New Reason to Believe(blog), Reasons to Believe, December 27, 2016; Hugh Ross, “Inhabitability of Planets Orbiting Red Dwarfs,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 30, 2017; Hugh Ross, “Tiny Habitable Zones for Complex Life,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 4, 2019; Hugh Ross, “Do Superhabitable Planets Exist?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 2, 2020; Hugh Ross, “Red Sky Paradox Points to Rarity of Earth’s Life,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 23, 2021.
4. Jianpo Guo et al., “Habitable Zones and UV Habitable Zones around Host Stars,” Astrophysics and Space Science 325 (January 2010): 25–30, doi:10.1007/s10509-009-0173-9.
5. S. Cassisi and M. Salaris, “Effective Temperature-Radius Relationship of M Dwarfs,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 626 (June 2019): id. A32, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201925468.
6. Glyn A. Collinson et al., “The Electric Wind of Venus: A Global and Persistent ‘Polar Wind’-Like Ambipolar Electric Field Sufficient for the Direct Escape of Heavy Ionospheric Ions,” Geophysical Research Letters 43, no. 12 (June 28, 2016): 5926–5934, doi:10.1002/2016GL068327.
7. Rory Barnes, “Tidal Locking of Habitable Exoplanets,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 129 (December 2017): 509–536, doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7.
8. Kristen Menou, “Water-Trapped Worlds,” Astrophysical Journal 774, no. 1 (August 16, 2013): 51, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/51.
9. Allison Youngblood et al., “The MUSCLES Treasury Survey. IV. Scaling Relations for Ultraviolet, Ca II K, and Energetic Particle Fluxes from M Dwarfs,” Astrophysical Journal 843, no. 1 (June 28, 2017): id. 31, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa76dd.
10. Hugh Ross, “Moist Greenhouse Threshold Doomsday,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 11, 2019; Illeana Gómez-Leal et al., “Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide and the Moist Greenhouse Threshold of Earth-Like Planets under an Increasing Solar Forcing,” Astrophysical Journal 869, no. 2 (December 2018): id. 129, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaea5f.
11. Ana H. Lobo et al., “Terminator Habitability: The Case for Limited Water Availability on M-Dwarf Planets,” Astrophysical Journal 945, no. 2 (March 16, 2023): id. 161, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca970.
12. B. Stelzer et al., “Flares and Rotation of M Dwarfs with Habitable Zones Accessible to TESS Planet Detections,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 665 (September 7, 2022): id. A30, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/2021142088.
13. Kevin France et al., “The High-Energy Radiation Environment around a 10 Gyr M Dwarf: Habitable at Last?” Astronomical Journal 160, no. 5 (October 30, 2020): id. 237, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb465.
14. R. Garcia et al., “Carbon Dioxide Outgassing Constrains the Habitability of Rocky Planets after Their Host M Dwarf’s Pre-Main Sequence Phase,” Eighth American Astronomical Society Topical Conference Series Meeting, Habitable Worlds 2021, id. 1211, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 53, no. 3 (March 19, 2021): e-id 2021n3i1211.
15. Garcia et al., “Carbon Dioxide Outgassing.”
16. Garcia et al.
17. Cecilia Garraffo et al., “The Threatening Magnetic and Plasma Environment of the TRAPPIST-1 Planets,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 843, no. 2 (July 12, 2017): L33, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa79ed.
18. Alexandre Emsenhuber, Christoph Mordasini, and Remo Burn, “Planetary Population Systhesis and the Emergence of Four Classes of Planetary System Architectures,” European Physical Journal Plus 138, no. 2 (February 27, 2023): id. 181, doi:10.1140/epip//s13360-023-03784-x; Toshinori Shimizu et al., “High-Contrast Imaging around a 2 Myr-Old Cl Tau with a Close-In Gas Giant,” Astronomical Journal 165, no. 1 (December 19, 2022): id. 20, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9fd1; Sahl Rowther and Farzana Meru, “Planet Migration in Self-Gravitating Discs: Survival of Planets,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 496, no. 2 (June 8, 2020): 1598–1609, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1590; Craig B. Agnor and D. N. C. Lin, “On the Migration of Jupiter and Saturn: Constraints from Linear Models of Secular Resonant Coupling with the Terrestrial Planets,” Astrophysical Journal 745, no. 2 (January 12, 2012): id. 143, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/143.
19. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 81–93; Hugh Ross, “Complex Life’s Narrow Requirements for Atmospheric Gases,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 1, 2019; Hugh Ross, “Tiny Habitable Zones for Complex Life,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 4, 2019; Hugh Ross, “Moon’s Early Magnetic Field Made Human Existence Possible,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 16, 2020.
20. Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022), 134.
21. John C. Armstrong, Llyd E. Wells, and Guillermo Gonzalez, “Rummaging through Earth’s Attic for the Remains of Ancient Life,” Icarus 160, no. 1 (November 2002): 183–196, doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6957; John C. Armstrong, “Distribution of Impact Locations and Velocities of Earth Meteorites on the Moon,” Earth, Moon, and Planets 107 (December 2010): 43–54, doi:10.1007/s11038-010-9355-2.
22. “Neil deGrasse Tyson, (caught on camera): The Universe Is Trying to Kill You,” interview outtake, Big Think Mentor, June 27, 2013.

The post More <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> That Planets Orbiting M Dwarf Stars Are Uninhabitable appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

About 40 years ago I concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald (1939–1963) was the lone assassin and that there was no conspiracy. In my view, the 1964 Warren Commission Report (WCR) got it basically right: one man, one rifle, three shots.

Why do I bring up this topic on my Reflections blog? One of the values I’ve tried to model and teach others is the need to apply careful reasoning in all of life. For Christians, this goal is especially worthwhile. Loving God with all our minds (Mark 12:30) is what I refer to as an intellectual virtue. A skeptical world watches as we reason through defenses of the Christian faith. A misstep there or on any topic, for that matter, erodes our credibility. 

The 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination affords all of us the opportunity to use our minds to the glory of God. Not everyone will agree with my thoughts on this tragic event, but I hope you’ll consider the reasons for my conclusion. In this brief article, I offer a way of thinking through this historical event that has been shrouded in conspiracy for 60 years.

The Evidence
When I first watched the Zapruder film, the 26-second home movie that captured the assassination, it looked to me that at least one shot hit the president from the right front in the direction of the grassy knoll, which caused his body to move violently “back and to the left.”1 However, the physical evidence of the John F. Kennedy autopsy photos clearly indicated that the president was hit twice from the right rear, consistent with Oswald’s shooting from the southeast sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Moreover, on photographic examination of the Zapruder film, the president’s head initially moves forward. The later movement back and to the left was likely caused by the bullet hitting the president’s head causing his back muscles to tighten, which moved the body backward.

Oswald’s rifle was found on the sixth floor with his palm print discovered on it. The boxes near the sniper’s nest (southeast corner of the sixth floor) also had Oswald’s fingerprints on them. Three spent rifle shells were found in the sniper’s nest and the bullet and bullet fragments found in Kennedy’s limousine matched ballistically and exclusively to Oswald’s rifle. An eyewitness sitting directly across the street from the Depository had also seen Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Oswald was also the only employee of the Texas School Book Depository to be absent at a roll call after the assassination.²

The Assassin 
But what ultimately weighed heavily on my conclusion was studying the life of Oswald. While you wouldn’t know it from all the conspiracy voices over the last six decades, Lee Harvey Oswald was actually much more like the school shooters of the last couple of decades than like the spy Jason Bourne. 

Like so many of the deeply disturbed school shooters, Oswald grew up without a father and was placed in juvenile detention at the age of 12. A psychiatrist assessed him as “emotionally disturbed.” He attended 12 schools in his youth and, as a young teenager, pulled a knife on his half-brother and sister-in-law.³

Oswald had demonstrated violent tendencies seven months before murdering the president. Oswald’s wife, Marina, said he attempted to assassinate a former Army general named Edwin Walker.⁴ His shot at Walker narrowly missed and this incident was connected to Oswald only after Kennedy’s death. Journalist and historian Priscilla Johnson McMillan—who worked for Kennedy in the early 1950s and later worked as a journalist—interviewed Oswald when he defected to the Soviet Union in the late 1950s. She called the Walker shooting “the Rosetta stone of the Kennedy assassination.”⁵

Three Shots in the Plaza
For decades people have wondered how Oswald was able to fire three shots with his World War II-era Italian bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and murder President Kennedy and seriously wound Texas Governor John Connally in a span of about six seconds. But assassination researcher Max Holland makes a persuasive case that the first shot came much earlier than initially thought (perhaps even prior to the Zapruder film), so Oswald had about eleven seconds to fire three shots.

“Eleven seconds to fire three shots is akin to all the time in the world,” Holland said. “There’s no longer any question of how it was so difficult to do and how he pulled it off.”⁶

Computer animation supports the single-bullet theory⁷ which is the Warren Commission’s thesis that one bullet (CE 399) hit both Kennedy and Connally. It’s been duplicated by using lasers and been reenacted with riflemen shooting into dummies with bodies that were made to resemble human flesh and body parts. So we may now refer to the single-bullet theory as a fact that has been supported by careful reenactment.⁸

New Challenge to the Theory
However, a recent book by former secret service agent Paul Landis, who was riding on the running board of the vehicle behind the presidential limousine, has led to new questions about the single-bullet theory. Landis now says he found a largely intact bullet (apparently CE 399) in the bloody back seat of the president’s limousine near where Kennedy was seated instead of near where Governor Connally was seated. Landis said he put the bullet in his pocket and later placed it on Kennedy’s gurney instead of another gurney (possibly Governor Connally’s). 

Yet, while some people claim that this new testimony supports a new bullet and, therefore, possibly a second assassin, Landis’s story doesn’t square with what he said and wrote in official secret service reports just after the assassination. With the story coming 60 years later, it’s been questioned by fellow secret service agent Clint Hill, who heroically climbed on the back of the presidential limousine in an attempt to protect the Kennedys during the assassination. Hill was asked by Landis to endorse his book but Hill declined because he said there were problems with the accuracy of some of Landis’s details.

The memory and testimony of a man now 88 years old and coming 60 years after the fact raises questions about the credibility of such a story. But let’s give Landis the benefit of the doubt and assume his report is accurate. His account could still be consistent with the Warren Commission’s finding that one bullet wounded both Kennedy and Connally. How so? When the presidential limousine arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital just minutes after the shooting, the limp bodies of the two men were in very close approximation to each other (the Connallys in the front seat and the Kennedys in the back seat were a mere 18 inches apart). John Connally’s six-foot-four body had to be removed from the limousine before the president’s body could be removed and placed on a hospital stretcher. It’s possible that in all the frantic excitement and rush, the bullet that had superficially lodged in the governor’s thigh was dislodged and ended up in the back seat when Connally was removed from the car.⁹

Concerning Oswald’s responsibility in the assassination, famous trial attorney Vincent Bugliosi marshals 53 pieces of evidence pointing to Oswald’s guilt.¹⁰ Bugliosi affirms that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald acted alone.

Neither Oswald nor Ruby Were Conspirator Types
But even if Oswald was the assassin how do we know he didn’t have help? The following quote by Howard P. Willens (who served as assistant counsel to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission) reflects Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reasoning about Oswald’s lone involvement in the Kennedy assassination:

In his memoirs, Warren wrote that Oswald was incapable of being the key operative in a conspiracy, and that any high-level government conspiracy would inevitably have been discovered.¹¹

Oswald and the man who killed him, Jack Ruby (1911–1967), were both independent and deeply disturbed people. No organization (organized crime, CIA, KGB, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, etc.) would reasonably select either man to carry out a professional assassination attempt or to silence the assassin. But again, like the many school shooters who are also deeply troubled, Oswald and Ruby were capable enough to act out violently, given the opportunity.

If you read the WCR¹² you’ll discover that Ruby arrived in the Dallas jail (Sunday, November 24, 1963) just moments before he shot Oswald with his revolver (at 11:21 AM). Just minutes before (11:17 AM) he had sent money via Western Union to one of his nightclub employees. The Western Union office was across the street from the jail and Ruby had stood in line waiting to be assisted. He even left his beloved dachshund, “Sheba,” in his parked car. Professional hit men don’t operate that way. He stumbled upon the opportunity to get close to Oswald and shot him out of compulsion. Moreover, if Oswald had to be rubbed out to keep from revealing a conspiracy, then so did Ruby as well as the man who would have to kill Ruby, and so on. But where does this chain reaction reasoning end?

As Warren noted, a governmental plot to assassinate the president would have had to involve a fair number of people. But the greater the number of people involved, the greater the chance someone would reveal the secret.

A Terrible Happenstance of History
I can understand how people can wonder how someone as inconsequential as Oswald could murder someone as consequential as the President of the United States. But the events of that dreadful day made it possible that one person could carry it out. Kennedy’s motorcade just happened to drive by the place where Oswald had been working for about five weeks. That there would be a motorcade through Dallas was decided just before Kennedy traveled to Texas. And the motorcade route itself was revealed in the local Dallas newspapers only a couple of days before the assassination. Therefore, there wasn’t sufficient time for a vast conspiracy to be planned and carried out.

It is reported that Oswald once told one of his fellow marines that he wanted to do something that people would be talking about 1,000 years in the future. Unfortunately, the assassination of the president may be that “something.” Holland described Oswald as a “politicized psychopath.”¹³ I think it’s an insightful description.

Takeaway

History matters and events attributed to large and complex conspiracy theories need to be carefully thought through. As Christians, we strive to know the truth and to pass it on to others. Even if you disagree with my conclusion about who killed JFK, I hope you’ll consider reviewing the resources provided below.

Resources

• For the government investigation that concluded that President Kennedy had probably been killed by a conspiracy, see the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA: 1976–1979).

• For perhaps the most reasonable conspiracy perspective, see Bill Rockwood, “Interview: G. Robert Blakey,” Frontline (PBS), November 19, 2013. As the chief counsel for the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey is probably the most qualified specialist who affirms a conspiracy. See his book The Plot to Kill the President.

• For a recent book by one of the original JFK assassination researchers who affirms a conspiracy, see Josiah Thompson, Last Second in Dallas.

• For a defense of the lone gunman theory, see Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.
• For another work supporting the lone gunman theory, see Larry M. Sturdivan, The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination.

Endnotes

1. The phrase “back and to the left” is used almost universally by JFK assassination researchers as evidence from the Zapruder film that the president was struck by a bullet from the right front, which implies a second assassin. Here is the line used in the famous 1991 conspiracy movie JFK directed by Oliver Stone: “The sixth and fatal shot—frame 313—takes Kennedy in the head from the front. This is the key shot. The president going back to his left. Shot from the front and right. Totally inconsistent with the shot from the depository. Again . . . back and to the left . . . back and to the left . . . back and to the left . . . back and to the left.”

2. See “Warren Commission Report Chapter 3,” National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, last reviewed August 15, 2016.

3. See the Wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald and the Warren Commission Report, “Appendix 13: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald,” National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, last reviewed August 15, 2016.

4. Dave Roos, “Before JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald Tried to Assassinate a Former Army General,” History, updated September 19, 2023.

5. Bill Rockwood, “Interview: Priscilla Johnson McMillan,” Frontline, PBS, November 19, 2013.

6. Max Holland, “The Zapruder Film Reconsidered,” YouTube, December 11, 2015.

7. Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination—Beyond Conspiracy (2003).

8. Eric Bland, “Tech Puts JFK Conspiracy Theories to Rest,” NBC News, November 13, 2008.

9. This explanation was proposed by JFK assassination researcher Gerald Posner: “‘Case Closed’ Author Separates Truth from Fiction in Latest JFK Assassination Bombshell Report,” NewsNation with Elizabeth Vargas, YouTube, September 11, 2023; “Gerald Posner Explaining New Revelations in the Kennedy Assassination,” Michael Smerconish, YouTube, September 11, 2023.

10. Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007), see “Summary of Oswald’s Guilt,” 951–69.

11. Earl Warren, The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 2001), 364–67. 

12. See “Appendix 16: A Biography of Jack Ruby,” National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, last reviewed August 15, 2016.

13. Holland, “The Zapruder Film Reconsidered.”

The post New <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for a JFK Conspiracy? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

To help readers who are not astrophysicists to appreciate this discovery, let me provide some background. 

Cosmic Dawn
Astronomers refer to one of the most crucially important epochs in the universe’s history as the cosmic dawn. It’s the time when the first stars form and their nuclear furnaces ignite so that they shine. In this early moment, the universe transitions from ubiquitous darkness to pervasive brightness. 

The JWST’s primary long-term mission is to explore and determine the nature of this cosmic dawn. Specifically, astronomers want to know how massive and numerous these first-born stars were and how they affected the formation of the universe’s first galaxies and black holes. Different big bang creation models predict different populations and mass ranges of such stars (called Population III stars).

Challenge of Seeing the Very First Stars
Astronomers have long known that not all stars form at the same rate. The greater the mass and density of a gas cloud, the faster that cloud will collapse and produce a protostar (young star that is still gathering and compressing the mass needed to ignite nuclear fusion). The greater the mass of the protostar, the faster the nuclear fusion in its core (the fusion of hydrogen into helium) will ignite to make it a stable, bright, shining star.

The shortest time in which a gas cloud can produce a protostar is about 1 million years.³ The longest it may take is about 10 million years. Table 1 lists the time required for protostars of different masses to transition from first becoming protostars to igniting the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in their cores.⁴ Knowing these times helps astronomers gain a more accurate picture of the universe’s early history.

Table 1: Time Durations for Protostars to Become Nuclear-Burning Stars

Star mass at nuclear ignition time               Time until nuclear-burning ignition

Table 2 lists the time required for stars to complete their nuclear burning cycle from start to finish and become supernovae. In a supernova event, a star blasts most of its nuclear-burning products into interstellar space. Stars that end their nuclear burning with masses more than 1.4 times the Sun’s mass will undergo a supernova eruption.⁵ Only stars that begin their nuclear burning with a mass greater than or equal to about 10 times the Sun’s mass will end their nuclear burning with this much mass. The duration of a star’s nuclear burning cycle is inversely proportional to the 2.5 power (~M^-2.5) to its mass at the time nuclear burning ignites.  

Table 2: Times for Stars to Complete Their Nuclear Burning and Become Supernovae

Star mass at nuclear ignition time     Time from nuclear ignition until supernova

As Tables 1 and 2 show, the most massive Population III stars in the universe burn through their nuclear fuel and explode as supernovae in 18,000 years or less (table 2) before the least massive Population III stars even begin their nuclear burning in 1 billion years (table 1). In fact, the most massive Population III stars will go through their entire nuclear-burning cycle before the least massive ones completely form as protostars from within the universe’s first gas clouds.

The dramatic difference in star formation time means that all the universe’s low-mass Population III stars will inevitably be polluted by the ashes from the high-mass Population III stars well before nuclear burning even ignites in these low-mass stars. This difference means that only the highest-mass Population III stars will be free of chemical pollution from supernova eruption events.   

Pristine Population III Stars
All big bang models predict that the universe begins with just one element in the periodic table: hydrogen. At the cosmic creation event, the universe is nearly infinitely hot. As the universe expands, it cools. One of the strongest verifications of big bang cosmology is the 12 billion-year cooling curve astronomers have observed and measured. It perfectly matches what the big bang models predict.⁶  

During the first few minutes after the cosmic beginning, the universe spends about 20 seconds in the 14–150 billion Kelvin temperature window, where nuclear fusion is able to take place. Within these 20 seconds, about 24% of the universe’s primordial hydrogen is fused into helium, along with a trace amount of lithium.

Big bang models thus predict that the very first stars to form will be composed of only these three elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium. All other elements will arise from the nuclear furnaces of stars, from supernovae, and from neutron star mergers.⁷

The challenge for astronomers has been that only the most massive Population III stars will have avoided being polluted by the ashes of supernovae. These extremely massive stars shine brightly for only a few tens of thousands of years. This rapid burn-up means that astronomers will only be able to image them at look-back times corresponding to the very early cosmic epoch when conditions first permit star formation to occur: the cosmic dawn. In other words, astronomers will need to search for these stars at distances of about 13.6 billion light-years—close to the earliest moments of the universe’s 13.8 billion-year history.

Not even the JWST possesses the power to image individual stars at distances of 13.6 billion light-years. The best that astronomers can hope for is to image a large dense cluster of stars at this distance. However, given how rapidly the most massive stars form, burn, and explode, such a star cluster is bound to be at least partly polluted by the earliest-forming stars, making the detection of stars comprised of only hydrogen, helium, and a trace amount of lithium extremely difficult.   

Nearly Pristine Population III Stars
The fact that stars composed of only hydrogen, helium, and a trace amount of lithium are observationally out of reach does not mean, however, that astronomers have no hope of establishing that such stars existed in the early universe. This important prediction of big bang cosmology can be verified by the discovery of low-mass Population III stars that have been polluted (infused with elements) exclusively by the residue of stars that started their nuclear burning with only hydrogen, helium, lithium, and no other elements.

These low-mass Population III stars remain bright for billions of years. Therefore, astronomers need not look back as far as 13.6 billion years (or the equivalent distance) to see them.     

To date, astronomers have discovered some low-mass Population III stars in the outer halo of our Milky Way Galaxy (MWG).⁸ As described in my book, Designed to the Core, our MWG is extraordinary in that its outer halo has an extremely low density of stars,⁹ with an especially sharp drop-off in density beyond 90,000 light-years from the MWG center. Astronomers have also determined that these outskirt stars have remained dynamically undisturbed for the past 11 billion years.¹⁰ Because of the unique features of the MWG’s outer halo, a few of the universe’s Population III stars still exist there and have not been polluted by later-forming stars (called Population II, which form entirely from the ashes of exploded Population III stars, and Population I stars, which form predominantly from the ashes of exploded Population II stars). They’ve been polluted only by the ashes of other Population III stars. 

The spectral signatures (measures of atmospheric composition) of these stars show that they possess extremely low quantities of elements heavier than lithium, quantities lower by orders of magnitude (factors of hundreds of times) than the least polluted Population II stars. Thus, there is no mistaking that they are Population III stars.

Breakthrough: Metal-Free Population III Stars
Astronomers would still hope to find direct evidence of “metal-free” Population III stars, stars manifesting huge amounts of hydrogen and helium and no measurable quantity of elements heavier than lithium (in astronomers’ terms,“metals”). 

Thanks to the JWST, such direct evidence of metal-free Population III stars may now be in hand. A mission known as JADES (JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey) is a quest by dozens of astronomers from all over the world to image the cosmic dawn in far greater detail and depth than the Hubble Space Telescope made possible.

In a paper already submitted to and still undergoing peer review at Astronomy & Astrophysics, 36 astronomers led by Roberto Maiolino used the JWST to study, spectroscopically, the halo of the galaxy GN-z11 (see figure 1). GN-z11 is an exceptionally luminous galaxy, ranked as the brightest known galaxy in the first half billion years of cosmic history.¹¹ GN-z11 has a light-travel distance of 13.35 billion light-years, which tells us that we are seeing it as it was just 440 million years after the big bang origin event.

Figure 1: Hubble Space Telescope Image of GN-z11
Credit: NASA/ESA        

GN-z11 has 1% of the mass and about 5% of the size of the MWG, and yet it’s one of the largest galaxies in the very early universe. GN-z11’s total stellar mass is about a billion times the Sun’s mass and its stars have an average age of only 40 million years (young, in astronomical terms).¹²

Maiolino and his colleagues detected the HeIIl1640 emission line in the halo of GN-z11. They then went on to show that the unusual width of this spectral line, as well as the absence of metal spectral lines, is best explained by the presence of extremely massive Population III stars. These stars—with masses ranging from 100 to 500 times (or greater) the mass of the Sun—would have effectively photoionized all the gas in GN-z11’s halo. The team’s data simultaneously ruled out Population II stars or GN-z11’s active galactic nucleus as possible source(s) of the observed photoionization. 

The existence of metal-free stars in GN-z11 with masses in the 100–500+ range, measured by Maiolino and his colleagues, helps explain GN-z11’s exceptionally high mass and size. This discovery yields the most direct and definitive evidence to date for the existence of the mass range of Population III stars predicted by virtually all big bang models. It provides the clearest picture to date of the cosmic dawn. 

A Bright Way Forward
It’s a momentous discovery, but it must be confirmed and more solidly established. As Maiolino’s team notes, astronomers will need the JWST to take deeper images of GN-z11 and other distant galaxies like it. (In an upcoming post, I’ll describe a new tool that astronomers plan to use to explore the cosmic dawn—a low-cost telescope to be placed on the Moon’s far side with the capacity to detect wavelengths of light never before seen by astronomers.) Already, however, this research has shown the astronomical community and the wider world the value of the JWST in providing fresh insights into the cosmic dawn. 

As astronomers gain further understanding of the numbers and mass distribution of the earliest stars, they’ll be able to build better models for the formation and development of the universe’s first galaxies. This bottom-up approach will be complemented, potentially, by a top-down strategy, which entails using the JWST to gather data on the universe’s first galaxies and how they formed.

One major benefit of this latest discovery is this: as astronomers learn more about the cosmic dawn, their insights will reveal which of several big bang creation models provides the most accurate description of the origin and history of the universe. I’m confident that a more detailed and precisely defined big bang model will yield yet more evidence that what the Bible declared thousands of years ago about the origin and the history of the universe is, in fact, true. Thus, it will strengthen the case for the divine inspiration and accuracy of the Bible, giving people around the world more reasons to believe in the One who created the universe and inspired the Scriptures.

Endnotes

1. Roberto Maiolino et al., “JADES: Possible Population III Signatures at z = 10.6 in the Halo of GN-z11,” arXiv:2306.00953v2 (June 6, 2023), submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics.
2. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.
3. Richard B. Larson, “The Physics of Star Formation,” Reports on Progress in Physics 66 (September 10, 2003): 1651–1697, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/r03.
4. Masanobu Kunitomo et al, “Revisiting the Pre-Main-Sequence Evolution of Stars: I. Importance of Accretion Efficiency and Deuterium Abundance,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 599 (March 2017): id. A49, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628260; I.-Juliana Sackmann, Arnold I. Boothroyd, and Kathleen E. Kraemer, “Our Sun. III. Present and Future,” Astrophysical Journal 418 (November 20, 1993): 457–468, doi:10.1086/173407; Rudolf Kippenhahn and Alfred Weigert, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1994), 266–270.
5. Eduardo Bravo et al., “Chandrasekhar-Mass White Dwarfs Are the Progenitors of a Small Fraction of Type Ia Supernovae According to Nucleosynthesis Constraints,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters 517, no. 1 (November 2022): L31–L35, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac103; Paolo A. Mazzali et al., “A Common Explosion Mechanism for Type Ia Supernovae,” Science 315, no. 5813 (February 9, 2007): 825–828, doi:10.1126/science.1136259.
6. Hugh Ross, “Taking the Big Bang’s Temperature,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, April 4, 2022. 
7. Hugh Ross, “Neutron Star Merger Explains Why We’re Here (Expanded Version),” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 3, 2017.
8. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Implications of Detecting the Universe’s First Stars,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 14, 2022; Hugh Ross, “J0023+0307, a Pristine Firstborn Star?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (April 9, 2018); Hugh Ross, “Pursuing the Firstborn Stars and a Better Cosmic Creation Model,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (July 15, 2019). 
9. Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022), 90–92.
10. Hugh Ross, “Have Galactic Archaeologists Found Evidence for Design?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 6, 2022.
11. P. A. Oesch et al., “A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at Z = 11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy,” Astrophysical Journal 819, no. 2 (March 8, 2016): id. 129, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129.
12. Oeasch et al., “A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy,” p. 7.

The post Cosmic Dawn <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> Bolsters Case for Creation appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My Answer: We have several full-length, exhaustively documented books answering your question. Here is a very brief response:

There are many differing definitions for biological evolution. It is always a good idea to ask evolutionists what they mean by biological evolution.    

Evolutionists have a ton of evidence that life has existed on Earth for the past 3.8 billion years and that during those 3.8 billion years life-forms have become progressively more advanced. However, they lack evidence that the origin and history of life was strictly naturalistic. We demonstrate in our book, Origins of Life, that all conceivable explanations for a naturalistic origin of life fail to account for the observations and experiments. For an update on why the history of life on Earth requires many supernatural interventions, see our books Thinking about Evolution, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core.

The post Is There a Ton of <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for Evolution? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Physics Podcast “Debate”
I was interviewed by Ukrainian physicist Mikhail Abukumov on the subject of the fine-tuning of the universe for the possible existence and benefit of human beings. (Abukumov has translated my debate with Oxford University chemist Peter Atkins on the British radio/podcast show Unbelievable? into Russian.) Abukumov paired me up with Russian physicist Alexey Burov, who is presently a staff scientist at Fermi Lab in Batavia, Illinois. Abukumov presumed that this podcast episode would be a debate about fine-tuning since he was aware that my books and articles on cosmic fine-tuning were different from the papers and articles written by Burov.

There was no debate. What I have written on cosmic fine-tuning complemented what Burov had written, and what Burov had written complemented what I had written. Anyone can watch or listen to the “debate” here.

Universe Designed for Observability
Both Alexey Burov and his son Lev Burov are theoretical physicists. Together, they wrote a paper titled Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe.¹ The paper is equation-free and, for the most part, can be understood by readers without a degree in physics.

Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe complements what I wrote in my book, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, concerning how the universe is designed for observability. In my book, I explained how there’s a relatively narrow time window in the history of the universe during which astronomers can observe 100% of the universe’s past history. Humans are inside that time window now. I also demonstrated that we are living in the one location within this vast universe where intelligent physical life is possible, and where that intelligent life can observe 100% of the past history of the universe. I argued that perhaps our epoch in cosmic history or our location might be coincidental, but not both simultaneously. I concluded that the most rational reason for why we exist at both the ideal time epoch and location is that Someone wanted us to read the entirety of the universe’s “book” so that we can fully comprehend his glory, power, care, righteousness, and other attributes (Psalm 19:1–4, 50:6, 97:6; Romans 1:18–20).

Balance between Complexity and Simplicity
Alexey and Lev Burov made a similar argument based on the laws of physics. They explained how the laws of physics are complex enough to make our existence possible, yet simple enough to allow us to discover and understand those laws and their significance in allowing us to exist and fulfill the purposes for which the Creator created us. They pointed out that the minimum complexity of the laws of physics that would permit us to exist and thrive on one planet equals the maximum complexity of those laws that we could conceivably discover. They wrote, “Every little increase in complexity of the laws would create a tremendous jump in difficulty of their discovery, but if they were even a little simpler, the universe would have lacked the structural variety of life, not to mention human brains.”² This equality, they argue, has no naturalistic explanation. The multiverse cannot account for it. Only a personal Creator who wanted us to exist and discover him explains such an extraordinary equality.

The Burovs demonstrate that what makes the equality a powerful testimony of God’s existence and the degree to which he has fine-tuned the universe for our benefit is that we can prove that the laws of physics are unchanged and noncontradictory throughout the entire space-time continuum of the universe, in some cases to eighteen places of the decimal! Additionally, we can show that the laws of physics apply over a size scale range of 10⁴⁵, from the largest-sized structures in the universe, like the cosmic web, down to the smallest ones, such as the top quark and the Higgs boson. As the Burovs conclude, an Ultimate Mind is necessary not only to explain the mathematical nature of the laws of physics but also to continuously guarantee the noncontradiction of all the laws of physics.

Beauty Principle
Another testimony of God’s existence and his designs comes from the observation that the laws of physics are described by equations that are extraordinarily beautiful and elegant. For example, we see the principles of symmetry, conservation, and equivalence manifested in the physical laws. We note that the laws are designed to fulfill multiple purposes simultaneously. This beauty and elegance are evident throughout the entire size scale range of 10⁴⁵. The beauty and elegance of the physical laws are so profound that it caused atheist theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner,³ a Nobel Laureate, to declare, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor desire. We should be grateful for it.”⁴ The Burovs point out that Wigner’s conclusion concerning this wonderful gift that we should be grateful for “can only have meaning if a mind to be grateful to is implied.”⁵ 

The Burovs’ demonstrations remind me of the best advice I ever got from my undergraduate physics professors. That advice: the key to obtaining the correct answer on a physics problem assignment is to look for the solution that is described by the most beautiful and elegant equations.

The undeniable beauty and elegance of the mathematical equations that describe the laws of physics provide profound evidence for God and his attributes. Humans are the only species of life on Earth capable of discovering the laws of physics. We’re also uniquely endowed with the aesthetic sense to comprehend and value beauty and elegance. That capability has no survival advantage. In fact, it’s a survival disadvantage. It finds explanation only in the context of a Creator who values and enjoys beauty and elegance and who wants us, as beings created in his image, to also value and enjoy beauty and elegance.

Endnotes

1. Alexey Burov and Lev Burov, “Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe,” in Trick or Truth? The Mysterious Connection between Physics and Mathematics, edited by Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster, and Zeeya Merali (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016): 157–70, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27495-9.
2. Alexey Burov and Lev Burov, “Metaphysical Status of Physical Laws,” in Plato in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, held in Ottawa, Canada (2019), edited by John F. Finamore and Mark Nyvlt (Lydney, UK: The Prometheus Trust, 2020): 130. This paper is available free in its entirety at http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/Metaphysical_Status_of_Physical_Laws.pdf.
3. Andrew Szanton, The Recollections of Eugene P. Wigner: As Told to Andrew Szanton (New York: Plenum, 1992), 60–61.
4. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Richard Courant Lecture in Mathematical Sciences Delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, issue 1 (1960): 14, doi:10.1002/cpa.3160130102.
5. Burov and Burov, “Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe,” p. 168.

The post More <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for a Beautiful Universe appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My answer: Some of the most often cited evidence that Jesus is the Messiah would be the 100+ Old Testament prophecies that he fulfilled during his incarnation, for example the Messianic prophecies in Psalm 22 and Zechariah 11:12–13. Other evidence would be the morally perfect life he led (even his mother, brothers, and sisters publicly acknowledged he was without sin—John 8) and the miracles that he performed (miracles far beyond those that the Old Testament prophets performed). Most Christian scholars assert that the best evidence is the historical case for Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead. It is because of Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead that followers of Christ can be assured that they, too, will be bodily raised from the dead.

The post What's the Best <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> That Jesus Is the Messiah? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My brief answer: There is no rational scientific evidence for a flat earth. If you take a flight from Athens to Johannesburg at night, which I have done, or any north–south flight where you cross the equator and look out the window, you will see the stellar constellations slowly turn upside down. Such an experience would be impossible if Earth was flat. Note, too, that the shortest possible flights between distantly apart cities always traverse a curve. For a spherical Earth, the shortest distance between two distantly apart points on the surface is always a curve and never a straight line.

Then there is the crow’s nest effect. The higher you are above Earth’s surface, the farther away you can see, because you are able to see farther across the surface of a spherical Earth. At elevations greater than 45,000 feet above sea level one can see the curvature of Earth’s surface, something I have also personally witnessed. A corollary to the crow’s nest effect is that at any height above Earth’s surface one can see the tops of distant objects but not the bottoms. The sphericity of Earth hides the bottom from view.

A not-so-scientific piece of evidence that Earth cannot be flat is that if Earth were flat, cats would have knocked everything over the edge by now.

The post Is There Scientific <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for a Flat Earth? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My answer: New discoveries and understandings in the book of nature (science) yield, on a daily basis, more evidence for God. I demonstrate some of that increasing evidence in my blog, Today’s New Reason to Believe, which posts nearly every Monday at reasons.org. Therefore, it will never be possible to present the full evidence for God’s existence.   

In the 30 books Reasons to Believe has published so far (4 more are on the way) we present most of the current scientific evidence for the God of the Bible and for divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. You will find those books at https://support.reasons.org/category/format/books/rtb-books. We are prepared to ship those books anywhere in the world.

Most Christian scholars believe the most compelling scientific evidence for God’s existence are (1) the space-time theorems which establish that a Causal Agent beyond space and time created the universe, (2) the fine-tuned design of the universe, our supergalaxy cluster, our galaxy group, our galaxy, our star, our planetary system, our Moon, and our Earth that makes possible the redemption of billions of human beings within a relatively short time period, (3) the origin of life, and (4) the origin of human beings. However, the most crucially important evidence for the Christian faith is the historical case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.   

The post What Is the Full Scientific <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evidence</em> for God? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.