Show post

Avery Foley and Troy Lacey #fundie answersingenesis.org

Grandmothers? What’s the Evolutionary Use?
In an evolutionary worldview, human grandmothers are a bit of a puzzle. In most animal species, females do not survive long after their childbearing years have ended. Human females, however, can and often do survive for decades after menopause, the hormonal change which concludes their childbearing years at around age 50. Studies such as the one mentioned below apply an evolutionary worldview in an attempt to explain what (or in this case, who) we see around us.

In this worldview, organisms are generally only helpful to the continued survival and evolution of the species if they can reproduce. Once an organism can no longer reproduce, it is merely taking up space and resources that could go towards either the reproducing or young members of the species. So why would evolution favor human grandmothers? Our life span should have evolved to be shorter, especially for women since, unlike men, there is a defined ending to their ability to reproduce. That is the evolutionary problem with grandmothers.

There Must Be an Evolutionary Explanation of Why Grandmothers Exist!
Defying evolutionary beliefs, grandparents have existed throughout recorded human history, and since we must have an evolutionary justification story for everything, the researchers of a new study have woven together an explanation with a slight twist.1 To be fair, this paper is looking specifically at how distance affected the “grandmother hypothesis,” which has been around at least since 2004. And that hypothesis was built upon “explaining old age by natural selection” in papers going back to at least 1966.2

In a nutshell, the “grandmother hypothesis” postulates that post-reproductive life spans are selected for in older women because grandmothers “gain inclusive fitness benefits by helping their daughters and grandchildren.”3 But in this new study, the authors looked at the distance between their mothers and their daughters to determine if there was a correlation. By looking over detailed church records from Quebec, Canada, in an age (1608–1799) where travel was much more difficult, they discovered slightly overall positive effects of the presence of the (grand)mother living in close proximity when her daughter was giving birth at a younger age and the number of offspring born, as well as lower chances of infant mortality.4 They also found that distance did affect the benefits, with grandmothers who lived over 50 km (31 miles) away providing severely decreased benefit to the mother or grandchildren, suggesting that geographic distance may constrain the ability of the mothers to help their daughters (and grandchildren), resulting in a decrease in fitness benefits with distance.5 But the authors admit that the evolutionary explanation is still elusive.

The question of why prolonged PRLS [post-reproductive life span] has evolved remains unanswered. Evolutionary pathways to prolonged PRLS have yet to be supported. Future research should apply quantitative genetic analyses to test evolutionary genetic hypotheses and assess the relative importance of PRLS hypotheses. The indirect fitness benefits accrued by grandmothers in our study support the proposition that the grandmother hypothesis can, in part, explain PRLS.6

In other words, from an evolutionary perspective, they cannot explain why women live long past their child-bearing years. Although the study mentioned above did find a positive correlation, it was slight and could just as readily be explained as a result of religion and community (French-speaking, Catholic, founder settler population initially). If evolutionary biologists were to be consistent with their evolutionary paradigm, it would seem that the expenditure of community resources on non-reproductive members would outweigh or at least even out the “babysitter benefits.”

Indeed, when one takes the evolutionary worldview to its logical conclusion, it becomes evident that euthanasia is the natural consequence. Euthanasia, typically defined as the intentional ending of the life of someone who is suffering, is increasingly being broadened to include those who are simply very elderly. In the evolutionary worldview that has increasingly permeated Western culture for over 150 years, this makes sense. Clear out the elderly so resources can be freed up for younger, healthier, and more productive persons.

Show post

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor, and another by Holt.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Show post

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?

Skeptics often claim, “The Bible is not a science textbook.” This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.

With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, “Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?” The answer is yes.

The Hard Facts

A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:

“And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19–20). The Bible is clear that representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals and birds were present on the Ark. A technical term used by some creation scientists for these kinds is baramin—derived from the Hebrew words for created kind. Within these baramins is all the information necessary to produce all current species. For example, it is unlikely that the Ark contained two lions and two tigers. It is more likely that it contained two feline animals, from which lions, tigers, and other cat-like creatures have developed.
Another lesson from Genesis 6:20 is that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. Therefore, this preservation of the world’s fauna was divinely controlled. It was God’s intention that the fauna be preserved. The animals’ recolonization of the land masses was therefore determined by God, and not left to chance.
“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. 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.

The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
The dog kind diversifying

As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.

Modern Recolonizations

One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.

Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.

Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

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. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americas—over a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood period—an assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.

The rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood.

As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3

Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oard’s studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.

Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossils—fossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.

One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.

Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.

We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.

It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.

The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.

Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
Recolonization Theory

The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).

More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5

Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earth’s previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor6, and another by Holt7.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Conclusions

We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.

Starting from our presupposition that the Bible’s account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Towards the end of our time together, I asked Bill to explain why he wore clothes. Again I wanted to show he had no moral basis for his worldview, but it was just subjective opinion. I then used Genesis’ account of the origin of clothing to explain the gospel to Bill. God gave Adam and Eve clothes because of sin. The first blood sacrifice was a covering for our sin, a picture of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Show post

Unknown author #fundie answersingenesis.org

Many people believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died before humans were alive. But when we read the Bible, we find that isn’t true. GENESIS 1 tells us that God created all land animals on Day Six of Creation (the same day He created Adam and Eve). Dinosaurs are land animals, so they were created on the same day as Adam and Eve, only six thousand years ago!

Show post

Unknown author #fundie answersingenesis.org

The argument, “Only the uneducated reject evolution,” is a logical fallacy on many fronts. It’s an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the creationist rather than challenging the creationist’s view. It’s a faulty appeal to authority because it appeals to particular experts without acknowledging that many experts dispute the claim of evolution. It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy because even though there are many educated creationists, they are reclassified as uneducated since supposedly no truly educated person would reject evolution.

Those who believe that only the uneducated reject evolution perhaps do not realize that evolution, far from fact, does not even qualify as a theory. Evolution is a belief system about the past. Creationists also have a belief system about the past, but it is based on the historical account of the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Apostle Paul was a highly educated man who believed the Scriptures (Acts 22:3; Philippians 3:4–11). When Paul was on trial for his faith and testifying before King Agrippa, the governor Porcius Festus exclaimed, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind” (Acts 26:24). Festus could not attack Paul’s credentials or testimony, but he suggested Paul’s extensive education had driven him to insanity. Paul’s gracious response appeals to the truth and rationality of his faith: “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words” (verse 25).

Paul had just explained his testimony how “according to the strictest party of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (verse 5) and how he had fiercely persecuted the first followers of Christ (verses 9–11) until his dramatic encounter with Jesus Himself (verses 12–18). He went from persecuting to proving Christ (9:20–22). Jesus appointed Paul as His witness (26:16) “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (verse 18).

Paul had lived faithfully to Christ’s commission, calling both Jews and Gentiles to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (verses 20–23).

So Paul not only had a personal testimony, but he also had the support of specific prophecies made hundreds of years before Jesus was born, which Christ perfectly fulfilled. 2 Let’s look at a few of these prophecies about the Messiah:

Paul pointedly asked, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe” (Acts 26:27). King Agrippa was apparently familiar with the Scriptures (verses 2–3). He also must have heard reports of Christ’s life, death, and Resurrection, since there were more than 500 eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–3; 1 Corinthians 15:6). Paul asserted, “For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

So King Agrippa was faced with a true and rational testimony of an educated man, a clear explanation of the gospel, the verification of eyewitnesses, and the fulfillment of prophecies. Sadly, King Agrippa put off personally turning to the truth: “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (verse 28). Paul gave further evidence of Christianity in his response—the evidence that he and many others were willing to give up everything, even their own lives, for the sake of the gospel: “And Paul said, ‘Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains’” (verse 29).

People today have as much evidence as King Agrippa had and even more because we have the completed Scripture with the addition of the New Testament to the Old Testament. Beyond these evidences, we have what AiG calls the ultimate proof of creation in that naturalism/materialism cannot provide any basis for laws of logic, absolute morality, and the uniformity of nature, yet the Bible gives us the basis for these. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18–32, those who suppress the truth about the Creator are fools, no matter how educated they are. On the other hand, those who have repented and trusted Christ have nothing to boast about except in the Lord, who by the message of the Cross saves sinners, no matter how uneducated.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I believe the message of the AiG ministry has been very “prophetic.” Even when I began teaching on creation vs. evolution back in 1975, I was already asserting that atheistic evolution and morality were connected and that, over time, immorality would grow as people rejected God’s Word and accepted evolution.

I taught that the more people believed that life arose by natural processes, the more they would also believe that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless—and morality could be whatever a person determined. Or, as Judges 21:25 states, when there was no king (or absolute authority) in the land, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The late Dr. Henry Morris (considered the father of the modern biblical creation movement) had also been writing about this connection between evolution and morality in most of his early books.

Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality. But notice that as generations have been indoctrinated into believing naturalistic evolution, Christian morality has declined. Armed with so-called “science,” secularists have become bolder in opposing Christian morality.

In our Western world, we are seeing more and more people (like Bill Nye “the Science Guy”) who boldly claim that evolution is “science” and are using it to promote an anti-Christian worldview. More than ever, secular activists are vehemently opposing Christian morality, such as marriage being between one man and one woman and abortion being murder. And we are seeing very amoral and immoral behavior growing across the culture, especially, it seems, among the millennial generation. While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.

Now, it’s a challenge to read Charles Darwin’s books like On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. His writing can be very convoluted and difficult to follow. But what is clear is that Darwin believed humans are not special as the Bible states (i.e., made in God’s image), but just animals. As a result, he declared that morality was a result of evolution, shaping man into a highly social species through the process of natural selection. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, “Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

My point is that there has always been a connection between evolution and morality. Over the years, I’ve heard many evolutionists (like Bill Nye) and even some Christians claim that evolution is all about “science.” They vigorously rejected my insistence that evolution involved a worldview that helps build a relative/subjective morality. That’s why many people were shocked (though I wasn’t at all) when Bill Nye released his new series on Netflix that pushes shocking immorality and is sometimes anti-Christian.

Kids and adults enjoyed Nye’s TV series years ago where he did lots of fun things to teach science. Even if you watched his series back then, you would have noticed how he promoted evolutionary ideas in biology and geology. But he did it in such a way that most children would not have really noticed—and many parents probably didn’t see those pro-evolution sections. But kids were subtly indoctrinated. Even before his famous “Science Guy” program, Bill Nye had his television debut when he performed a comedy routine. It included a number of sexual innuendos.

For the many of you who saw my 2014 debate with Bill Nye (available uncut online or as a DVD), you will remember how I emphasized that the creation vs. evolution issue was actually a clash of two worldviews. Nye rejected this, of course, claiming I was the one who was talking about religion, but he was all about “science.”

In that debate I revealed the connection between naturalistic evolutionary beliefs and morality. Nye totally rejected this view. But people are now starting to see that what I stated in the debate is now being played out before their very eyes.

A recent article in the Christian Post reported (please excuse the crudeness):

On his Netflix show “Bill Nye Saves the World” on Sunday, the man famous for his 1990s series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” cheerily featured “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” star Rachel Bloom performing a lewd number called “My Sex Junk” and a video called “Ice Cream Sexuality,” a clear derision of Christian sexual ethics.

Nye’s new show occasionally references science and scientific language with the purpose of promoting left-wing causes.
Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, told the Christian Post, "These sad videos prove that atheistic Darwinians are so committed to blind faith that they very well may be invincibly ignorant.”

But really, this is what the belief in naturalistic evolution has always been about! I’m sure many of you have heard of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. He was an English novelist and grandson of the famous contemporary of Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” who, as an aggressive secular humanist, heavily promoted Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. He clearly saw Darwin’s naturalistic evolution as a justification for his secular humanist worldview.

Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about Brave New World: “The novel presents a nightmarish vision of a future society in which psychological conditioning forms the basis for a scientifically determined and immutable caste system that, in turn, obliterates the individual and grants all control to the World State.”

In 1937, Aldous Huxley made this statement in his book Ends and Means:

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.

We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world.

There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word—a battle between two worldview religions. Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

And the only way to ultimately win this struggle is for people to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb: “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).

This is why the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter exist. As we answer questions that will point people to the truth of God’s Word, we also clearly present them with the gospel. We’ve never hidden the fact that evangelism is our ultimate purpose—which is why we receive so much opposition from secularists. At the Creation Museum we present the saving gospel in different ways. That includes the stunning movie The Last Adam and the powerful new exhibit Christ, Cross, Consummation. We also make evangelistic tracts available free to our guests.

At the Ark Encounter, the gospel is featured in a number of ways including through the new movie As in the Days of Noah. The gospel is also powerfully shown in the massive exhibit Why the Bible Is True, with a graphic-novel approach. In that exhibit, we walk guests through the various “doors” of Scripture and then challenge visitors to go through the most important “door,” the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have just created a new gospel-witnessing tract on the “doors” of Scripture. It has been produced in conjunction with our new Ark exhibit, and we freely offer it to each guest who wants one at the Ark Encounter. I’m very excited about this new resource. It’s one more evangelistic tool to share the gospel at the Ark Encounter. And now you can order this “Doors of the Bible” tract from our online store and share it with someone who needs to hear the gospel.

I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel. And it is through your prayers and support that you are enabling AiG to continue all its many vital outreaches—to impact millions of souls for the kingdom of Christ while countering anti-Christian influences, like Bill Nye.

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (GENESIS 1:27)

According to evolution, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Because evolutionists believe this happened they expect to find “missing links” between people and our supposed ape-like ancestors. We know from our Bible verse that people were specially made by God in His own image. We did not evolve from anything, so the “missing links” evolutionists are looking for will always be, well, missing!

One fossil that is often called a “missing link” is a fossil skeleton known as “Lucy.” Many evolutionists believe that Lucy is a link between ape-like creatures and people. Lucy’s skeleton is missing a lot of her bones. Originally she had 207 bones, but 160 of these are missing including most of her hands, feet, and skull.

Far away from where Lucy was discovered are a set of fossilized footprints that look just like the footprints you would make if you walked along the beach. Evolutionists believe that these footprints are too old to be human footprints, even though they look exactly the same as human footprints, so they decided that something like Lucy must have made them.

These footprints couldn’t have been made by Lucy, though, because she didn’t walk upright like people do. Other fossils of the same species as Lucy have been found and they have curved toes and fingers just like modern apes do! They also have ape wrists and ape shoulders, which means that Lucy and her family did not walk upright. Instead, like other apes, they lived in trees and walked on their knuckles.

Rather than a missing link in the evolutionary chain, Lucy is just an extinct ape! We can trust the Bible when it says that all people were created in God’s image!

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Secularist Media War Against the Ark Continues

Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure. Sadly, they are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking.

In one sense, such negative, misleading, and outright false reporting doesn’t worry me. As Christians, we know we will receive opposition like this—and after 40 years in Bible-upholding ministry, I have become used to such antics by those who oppose us. Nowadays, it seems very few reporters in the secular media actually want to report facts regarding what they cover as news. When it comes to reporting on theologically conservative Christians like those of us at AiG, whose ideology they strongly oppose, many writers have an agenda to undermine Christianity as they file their stories.

I’ve found that not only do these kinds of reporters generally do very poor or lazy research, they will actually make things up for their agenda purposes. They often just quote others, who themselves have quoted yet others, who have quoted even yet others. Urban legends have now been created around our life-size Noah’s Ark, mixing misleading and untrue statements gathered from a variety of sources, often not using primary sources but hearsay.

A Recent Case in Point

Let me give you a recent example. Reporter Linda Blackford wrote a recent front-page article on the Ark Encounter for the secular newspaper the Lexington Herald Leader of Kentucky (the state’s second largest paper). Her article was titled “Town Expected Flood of Business after Noah’s Ark Opened. So Far, It’s a Trickle.”1

After reading that headline and then her article, I was convinced that she (and probably her editor) had an agenda even before she began her research and writing. She was determined to convince readers that the Ark Encounter wasn’t successful and that it hadn’t had much of a positive economic impact or created jobs in Grant County. As she ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the reporter misquoted the few people she did interview and deliberately wrote an article that hid the whole truth about the tremendous economic impact that the Ark Encounter has had on all of Northern Kentucky. Her motivation? Well, because her newspaper has been known for antagonism toward anything Christian, and AiG has experienced this agenda from the paper over the years, what’s occurred here is yet another example of its anti-Christian bias.

[...]

Intolerant Atheists

The Herald-Leader isn’t the only secular media outlet spreading such maligning anti-AiG propaganda. Many secular bloggers and organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have produced videos and/or printed articles filled with misinformation and deliberate falsehoods in their attempt to hide the truth about the success of the Ark.

Many articles, for example, have actually stated that the city of Williamstown, where the Ark is located, is liable for the $62 million dollar bond offering that was part of the funding for the Ark. That’s simply a lie. Answers in Genesis is totally liable for that bond offering, which states:

The Series 2013 Bonds shall not be general obligations of the Issuer but special and limited obligations payable solely from the amounts payable under the loan agreement and from funds and property pledged pursuant to the indenture. The Series 2013 Bonds and the interest payable thereon do not now and shall never constitute indebtedness of the Issuer or the Commonwealth of Kentucky within the meaning of the Constitution or the Statutes of the Commonwealth, and neither the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky nor any political subdivision thereof shall be liable for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation or agreement created by or arising under the indenture or the Series 2013 Bonds from any property other than the trust estate. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds.3

Yes, the bonds were issued through the city, but the city is not responsible for one cent of this offering. Some articles even say the bond offering is part of the TIF—which is simply ridiculous! The amount of misinformation and outright lies about the Ark project is staggering.

Why so many lies and misinformation? Simply because we are in a spiritual battle, and the intolerant secularists are so upset with such world-class attraction like the Ark (and Creation Museum) that publicly proclaim a Christian message. They will resort to whatever tactics they deem necessary to try to malign the attractions.

Of course, negative reporting and commentary result in more advertising for our facilities! As I witness all this opposition and see such opposition backfiring, I am reminded again of what Joseph declared and how it applies to us today:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)
Show post

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

Scientists first began studying the world around them because they wanted to understand and praise its Creator. Because God shows some of His character through creation, they tried to learn more about Him by studying His creation.

Because they viewed the world through biblical glasses, many creationists made great discoveries and improvements in many different sciences.

Show post

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

Author Steve Ham explores the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Recently I had the opportunity to read and review the book Counseling the Hard Cases.1 This book places the biblical counseling movement on display as it reports the process and outcomes of real-life counseling cases. As a biblical creationist, I was continually encouraged to find the counselors’ dedication to the sufficiency of Scripture for helping real people with real problems. While preparing a review of this book as a graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, I became even more aware of the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

I noticed the strong correlations between biblical creationists and biblical counselors in the first chapter of Counseling the Hard Cases. Both positions face accusations revolving around the nature of authority and science. For example, many “Christian counselors” are convinced that the use of such treatments as hypnosis or psychotropic drugs are based on strong scientific research and analysis.2 Persuaded that this research comes from an authoritative source, they then integrate it into their counseling methodology.

Like most “Christian counselors,” trained biblical counselors typically take great care to refer counselees to doctors for necessary medical diagnosis and treatment of their physical ailments. However, for spiritual issues the biblical counselor seeks to ensure that Scripture is seen as the supreme authority and sufficient to help all believers deal with trials (suffering) or sin in their lives. Biblical counselors also should acquaint themselves with the research related to such things as medication, noting which recommendations are based upon repeatable, testable observations and which are based on assumptions influenced by a secular worldview. This is also why biblical counselors prefer to work in partnership with physicians who are Bible-believing Christians. In recognition of secular worldview influences in the medical community, many biblical counselors have armed counselees with questions to ask their practitioners who prescribe medications such as anti-depressants. Especially if a diagnosis is as broad as the term “chemical imbalance,” biblical counselors will encourage questions such as the following:

• What tests were performed to prove that the problem exists?
• What proof do you have that the problem you discovered is not merely a symptom of a deeper problem?
• What proof do you have that the medication you are prescribing truly corrects the problem?

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

In today’s world it seems nearly every social or relational problem known to man is categorized by a descriptively named disorder and often treated by some psychotropic drug. In many cases, counselors and others re-label sinful responses to situations in a way that removes personal responsibility. For example, lashing out at your children in anger is now known as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and “it’s not your fault” that you act the way you do. If your son consistently disobeys your authority as his parent, he will likely be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These disorders are often depicted as villains maliciously attacking their victims as if they were a force unto themselves. When seen in this light, these problems become the cause of debilitation for many people who find themselves lost in a hopeless dependence on secular psychological techniques and prescription medication.

This wrong perception of relational problems that are ultimately rooted in sinful thoughts and behaviors has sadly become commonplace even in the church. Many counseling practitioners have attempted to make a compatible partnership between Christian doctrine and worldly philosophies in the diagnosis and treatment of the human soul.[

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

To address this issue, Counseling the Hard Cases reports on real-life case studies from eleven experienced biblical counselors. Compiled by editors Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, the introduction clearly sets forth the theme for this collection of biblical counseling case studies.4 In the development of the modern biblical counseling movement over the last fifty years, persuasive evidence shows that “Scripture is comprehensively sufficient to do ministry with people experiencing profound difficulties in their lives” (p. 23).

While the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling is the basic thesis of the book, in each of the hard cases the editors have been careful to display this concept practically in the lives of real people. Even for those who are not skeptical about biblical counseling, the results of these hard cases were amazing and gave great cause for rejoicing in the redeeming grace found in the Cross of Christ.

The biblical counseling movement has been criticized by those who are skeptical of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling. Secular psychology understandably views the Bible as irrelevant, but many “Christian counselors” acknowledge the Bible’s relevance yet deny its sufficiency in the way that they practically advise their counselees. We expect people with a purely naturalistic view of the human condition to dismiss biblical wisdom in counseling, and therefore this book primarily answers the criticisms of “Christian counseling.”

One of the primary criticisms of biblical counselors is that they use the Bible to somehow replace science and therefore ignore the consensus of secular research for dealing with psychological problems. But the proof of scriptural sufficiency for biblical counseling is convincingly “in the pudding.”5 This book helps put to rest the misconception that biblical counselors ignore science as the reader observes them partnering with trained physicians to treat real and identifiable physical problems. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Christ, through the voice of the counselor, that the application of biblical truth guides a responsive counselee to healing and sanctification.

When discussing counseling methods, a key question to ask is this: does the authority to diagnose the many human dysfunctional behaviors come from man’s word or God’s Word? Heath Lambert is quick to point out that the counseling debate is profoundly centered in presuppositions. He refers to Jay Adams, who stated that his presupposition in counseling methodology is “the inerrant Bible as the standard of all faith and practice” (p. 8). It is clear that each of the contributing authors commences his or her counseling approach with the same presupposition as Adams. To some, this presupposition may seem like an intellectual debate about methodologies. But the ten extraordinary cases presented in the book consistently confirm the truth of this idea in real-life situations as the hope of Christ transforms lives and frees people from bondage to sinful thoughts and behaviors. So, a presuppositional approach to Scripture is not simply a debate about truth; it is also entirely practical.

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

Like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook.

Other accusations against the biblical counseling movement have come from a misinterpretation of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Critics claim that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore it is ill-equipped to help with so-called psychological disorders. The answers to such claims are well stated in this book.

First, secular psychology fails to prove that many of the human problems “classified as mental illnesses” are related to any real “disease or illness at all” (p. 8). This ultimately means that the “science” of secular psychology has its own problems with regard to the definition of observational (i.e., testable, repeatable) science, by which a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and either proven or denied. As a prime example, no one really knows how certain neurotransmitters relate to conditions like depression and anxiety. Yet various medications are prescribed to correct imbalances that have not been accurately defined.

Second, critics from the Christian counseling movement suggest that biblical counselors are using the Bible in place of “science” or as a “science” textbook. But, like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook. Within all the different genres that Scripture takes, the biblical counselor starts with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word. So, instead of viewing human problems in the light of a secular label such as a phobia or disorder, biblical counselors present human problems as Scripture does—in terms of the problem of human sin and suffering and the answer in the gospel.

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

Reading through each of the hard cases, one soon comes to the realization that these scriptural truths are not just words on a page. Instead, the case studies show there truly is transformational power in the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The same God who saves us from everlasting destruction also brings us into a life that exemplifies His grace. Even more enlightening is the fact that many of the people whose stories are told in this book found genuine healing after having first been disillusioned by the debilitating effects of anti-depressives, hypnosis, attempts to relive a better childhood, and various other secular treatments.

The list of documented cases contains “disorders” that many pastors have dispatched in the “too-hard” basket. They include an extreme example of sexual abuse, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and more. A purely theoretical book cannot touch the impact of this book in retelling what these real-life experiences reveal about the sufficiency of Scripture in the counseling process.

One final thing that should be mentioned in respect to these cases is the book’s consistent theme highlighting the believer’s satisfaction in Christ, confidence in the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, a commitment for prayerful reading and application of Scripture, and the supportive care of the local church community. The counseling process is shown to engage not only one counselor but God working through His Word and the community of believers in the heart and mind of the counselee.

The Powerful Word of God

I heartily recommend this book to pastors and any believer needing to witness the powerful nature of the Word of God to gain confidence and steadfastness in the faith—and anyone with a desire to help others:

I myself am satisfied about you my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, ESV)

Footnotes

1. Stuart W. Scott and Heath Lambert, eds. Counseling the Hard Cases. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
2. “Christian counseling” is a term most often associated with counselors who are prepared to integrate secular psychology’s methodologies and treatments into their counseling.
3. Answers in Genesis has produced an excellent video on this very topic called Counterfeit Counseling by Pastor Brad Bigney.
4. Dr. Stuart Scott, one of the editors of Counseling the Hard Cases, spoke at the Answers for Pastors conference in October 2013 on the sufficiency of Scripture in biblical counseling.
5. This is not to say that every biblical counseling case ends successfully. God’s Word—our fully reliable and sufficient source of truth—requires the believer to submit and obey in humility, but sadly, some people do not submit to the authority of Scripture.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” is getting his own film—Bill Nye: Science Guy. This documentary, funded on Kickstarter, is supposed to be “A film for science. A film for the cosmos. The full access, exclusive film about Bill Nye.” The page for the premiere of the event describes it as,

Bill Nye is retiring his kid show act in a bid to become more like his late professor, astronomer Carl Sagan. Sagan dreamed of launching a spacecraft that could revolutionize interplanetary exploration. Bill sets out to accomplish Sagan's mission, but he is pulled away when he is challenged by evolution and climate change contrarians to defend the scientific consensus. Can Bill show the world why science matters in a culture increasingly indifferent to evidence?

Based on that description, it doesn’t sound like a film for science—it’s a film to promote evolution and man-made climate change as fact. A number of well-known atheists are listed as featuring in this movie—and so am I! In addition to his movie, Nye will also have his own TV show again, Bill Nye Saves the World, on Netflix this spring. Although we don’t know for sure, it’s very likely this show will also dedicate time to defending evolutionary ideas and drastic man-made climate change.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Third Anniversary of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate

Today marks three years since the widely publicized Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate on creation vs. evolution here at the Creation Museum. That was a very exciting event, and I praise God that I was able to clearly share the gospel several times, both to Bill Nye and the millions of people who were watching via YouTube live stream or later on our YouTube channel.

I also was able to help people understand the following:

1. There’s a big difference between historical science and observational science.

2. Molecules-to-man evolution is historical science and thus is a belief system (a religion).

3. The real battle between Bill Nye and me was a worldview clash.

4. Bill Nye holds to naturalism, which for all intents and purposes is atheism.

The Second Debate

Since that debate we’ve opened the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky. Well, the day after it opened in 2016, Bill Nye and his film crew came and toured the Ark. As I guided him through the Ark for over two hours, our conversation ended up being a passionate, but amicable, second debate.

I was able to present the gospel to him again very clearly, and we pray that his heart will be softened and that he will recognize his desperate need to receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

[...]

Bring Both Debates Home

You can bring home both my original debate with Bill Nye and the second debate at the Ark Encounter. These resources are great conversation starters with unbelieving friends or family members. They’re also great for science classes, homeschool, or churches. Believers will be encouraged with answers to the skeptical questions of our day and will see firsthand how to respond to these objections.

You can order both debates as a DVD combo (also available as a download) or order the download bundle that gives you instant access to both debates and includes the Inside the Nye/Ham Debate ebook (also available as a physical book and DVD combo). Inside the Nye/Ham Debate provides detailed answers to the many complex questions that I did not have time to answer during the debate. This is a great resource as you watch the debate!

You can order the Two-Debate Combo or the Nye/Ham Debate Download Bundle, which includes the ebook, from our online store.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

AIG staff writer #fundie answersingenesis.org

Being a creationist for the wrong reason is wrong . . .


Do we feel solidarity with Muslim creationists? The question is largely similar to whether we feel solidarity with those in the Intelligent Design Movement. On one hand, we certainly use many of the same arguments and agree that evolution is an unscientific, by-faith explanation of origins from a naturalistic standpoint. Just as those in the Intelligent Design Movement may generate scientific research we agree with, and just as they may point out societal problems evolution has led to, so also may Muslims.

On the other hand, it is very easy to exaggerate the bond of Muslim and Christian creationists, as the Post article seems to do. The problem stems, first, from a focus on the creationist element of each group’s identity and, second, from forgetting that creationist views are intellectually submissive to religious views. Answers in Genesis is a ministry upholding God’s Word first and foremost—and, because of that, our mission is entirely incompatible with an organization promoting a Koranic worldview. Our position on creation is an outgrowth of a biblical worldview, and our mission is closely tied to defending that connection.

Thus, to even imply that we would find Muslim creationists more like-minded than evolutionists (Muslim or otherwise) misses the point. Any worldview that fails to begin with God’s Word is ultimately flawed, just as any individual without a saving relationship with Jesus Christ remains responsible for their sins before a just God.

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?
IN A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW, BIRDS WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AROUND BEFORE DINOSAURS EVER WALKED THE EARTH—A WHOLE DAY BEFORE!
According to evolutionary thinking, modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs. But the biblical worldview stands in sharp contrast to this. According to God’s Word, birds were created fully formed and functioning to reproduce after their own kind on Day Five of Creation Week. Dinosaurs, which are land animals, would not have been created until Day Six. So in a biblical worldview, birds would have actually been around before dinosaurs ever walked the Earth—a whole day before!

Is there any compelling evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Not at all! Dinosaurs were reptiles and share traits common among reptiles—not birds. They were likely cold-blooded, had lungs like other reptiles, and were covered in scales. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded, have unique lungs, hollow bones, and are covered in feathers. They are completely and utterly different. Adding to the problems with evolutionary ideas about bird evolution is the fact that modern birds like parrots, loons, and owls are found in the fossil record in some of the very same layers as dinosaurs. How could modern birds have evolved from dinosaurs when modern, fully formed birds are found alongside dinosaurs in the very same layers?1

Did dinosaurs have feathers? In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs. Currently the evidence does not support the idea that dinosaurs were covered in feathers. Now while we may not know for sure what dinosaurs looked like, what we do know is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. They—like dinosaurs—were specially created by God in the beginning to reproduce according to their kind.

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Did Dinosaurs Have Feathers?
Many scientists today have accepted the idea that dozens of different species of dinosaurs were covered in feathers. This has resulted in recent artist’s depictions showing dinosaurs covered in soft down or even flight-like feathers. These depictions are nothing short of bizarre and leave the dinosaurs looking quite ridiculous. But was Jurassic World wrong in leaving off the feathers and opting instead for the traditional scaly bodies?

FIBROUS FILAMENTS WITH BRISTLES ARE A FAR CRY FROM THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF A FEATHER!
Feathers are highly complex structures that grow out of skin follicles, like human hairs. Scales, the traditional covering of dinosaurs, are folds in the skin. However, scientists now claim that many—if not most—dinosaurs had the ability to grow feathers. But the supposed evidence for feathered dinosaurs is scanty and speculative. Some dinosaur fossils have been uncovered that contain fibrous filaments. These filaments do not contain the same elements as feathers—shafts, barbs, or barbules—but instead merely have bristles. Fibrous filaments with bristles are a far cry from the complex structure of a feather! Despite the artistic license taken by many dinosaur sculptors and artists today, there is no conclusive evidence that any dinosaur had feathers.

Why are so many scientists eager to accept the idea of feathered terror, like T. rex, if the evidence is so speculative and controversial? Well, this easy acceptance with so little supporting evidence highlights that this is a worldview battle. Evolutionists firmly believe that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. This is such a firm belief that many dinosaurs are referred to as “non-avian dinosaurs” and birds are called “avian dinosaurs.” Some scientists will go as far as to say that dinosaurs are not extinct, they are alive today all over the world twittering on telephone wires, eating at our bird feeders, and flying in flocks above our heads. The desperate desire for evidence to substantiate this idea is so strong that many evolutionary scientists eagerly jumped on the feathery dinos bandwagon despite the lack of evidence! Really, it is an evolutionary worldview that drives this acceptance and continued promotion of the idea.

Show post

Ken Ham & Dr. Andrew Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dinosaur Footprint Wall in Bolivia

A recent article highlighted the Cal Orcko archaeological site in Bolivia. This site in South America has numerous, well-preserved dinosaur footprints (originally listed as over 5,000), and another 5,000 tracks were discovered in 2015. Some of the dinosaurs that left these footprints were Ankylosaurs, Titanosaurs, Carnotaurus, and a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.

These fossilized dinosaur footprints were originally discovered in 1985, but local mining of the limestone in the area has brought many more prints to light, starting in 1994. The area is now an official Bolivian paleontological site and an application has been submitted to designate it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But even more interesting is that the footprints are not on flat ground but rather on an almost vertical wall; and the vast majority seem to be moving in one direction (downhill as the geography now stands). Now this is a region that has had lots of tectonic activity in the recent past, so this was probably flat ground at the time the dinosaurs were making the tracks.

Of course what makes this intriguing from a biblical creation and Flood geology perspective is that the tracks are preserved so well, and that we see a diverse grouping of what were considered to be both herbivores and carnivores. We also have tracks from juvenile dinosaurs—some alone and others side by side with adults of the same species. A couple of quotes about the Cal Orcko archaeological site from the Guardian website really stood out:

That ankylosaur was running. It sank its four toes into the ground, rather than its heel. . . .

The creatures' feet sank into the soft shoreline in warm damp weather, leaving marks that were solidified by later periods of drought. Wet weather then returned, sealing the prints below mud and sediment. The wet-dry pattern was repeated seven times, preserving multiple layers of prints. The cherry on the cake was added when tectonic activity pushed the flat ground up to a brilliant viewing angle—as if nature was aware of its tourism potential.

So we have running dinosaurs and what appears to be alternating periods of water covering the sand flats and then receding for a short time, only to cover the area once again. This sounds a lot like an area where dinosaurs may have been fleeing rising floodwaters, which brought the sediment to quickly cover and preserve the footprints the fleeing dinosaurs left behind.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, geologist and AiG’s director of research, had this to say:

All claims about the environment in which these dinosaurs lived and how they left their footprints are mere speculation (i.e., based on historical science, not observational science), because no scientists were there at the time to observe and report to us what happened. So it is hardly an observed fact that this was a lake. But what we do observe is that these footprints were made in a sandy limestone, and that in that same limestone are the fossilized remains of snails, bivalves, fish, turtles and crocodiles.1 Furthermore, we know from observations that animals and footprints are not fossilized in lime sand that slowly accumulates and is exposed even for a brief period to bacteria, and the sun, wind and waves. Rapid accumulation and rapid burial are required. And lime sand is usually produced by turbulent ocean waters. Yet dinosaurs are land-dwellers. Thus these fossils of water-dwelling animals and fossilized dinosaur footprints found in this sandy limestone are consistent with the Flood cataclysm, when the rising ocean waters swept rapidly over the land in oscillating surges, repeatedly engulfing fleeing land animals as it buried their footprints with water-dwelling animals. These fossilized dinosaur footprints testify to these dinosaur herbivores and carnivores being more interested in fleeing en masse in one direction to escape the destructive waters than their next meal.

Yet again we see evidence of the Flood that God sent as a judgment for mankind’s wickedness (Genesis 6:17) and of the Ark that He had Noah build—a reminder to us today of another Ark of salvation, Jesus Christ. These fossilized footprints stand as a reminder that observational science always confirms the Bible.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Footnotes

See Martin Lockley et al., “Titanosaurid Trackways from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: Evidence for Large Manus, Wide-Gauge Locomotion and Gregarious Behaviour,” Cretaceous Research 23, no. 3 (June 2002): 383–400, doi:10.1006/cres.2002.1006.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Where Did the Rattlesnake’s Rattle Come From?

How did the rattlesnake get its rattle? A recent article about new research on the rattlesnake’s formidable rattle states, “The evolution of the rattle has baffled scientists because, unlike other complex physical traits like eyes or feathers, it has no obvious precursor or intermediate stage.” According to David Pfennig at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “There is no half-rattle.”

Well, to those who start with the Bible, it’s no surprise that no such thing as a “half-rattle” exists. But for an evolutionist this is a major puzzle. Now evolutionists have suggested perhaps snakes started shaking their tails to warn predators, and eventually the noise-making rattle “evolved . . . as a more effective signal that took advantage of the pre-existing behavior.” But “how exactly the rattlesnakes then got their noisemaker is a more difficult question.”

The article suggests two different ways:

Some snakes were genetically pre-disposed to retain some extra skin on their tails when they shed, which made noise when they shook it and so this trait was selected for until it developed into the rattle.

The other, more controversial idea is that the snakes developed a callus on their tail from shaking it against the rough ground, and if the propensity to develop a callus was affected by genetic variability, it would be selected for until the structure underwent “genetic assimilation,” and the rattle would form without the need for irritating the skin.

But where the snake got its rattle isn’t actually a difficult question needing such an imaginative answer. It’s only a difficult question if you reject the true history recorded in God’s Word in favor of man’s ideas about the past. Observational science demonstrates that nearly 40 rattlesnake species probably belonged to one original created kind. There are no “half-rattles” because God uniquely designed this kind with a rattle.

The rattle would be something we now call a defense structure, but it wouldn’t have been necessary as such before the Fall. Though a rattlesnake’s toxic venom wouldn’t have existed before the Fall, the rattle would become a merciful warning to the fangs behind it in a post-Fall world. (See more about a biblical response to these post-Fall defense/attack structures in the 2009 Answers article, “Designed to Kill in a Fallen World.”)

By the way, where is there “half-anything” in living things today? If molecules-to-man evolution is true, why don’t we see “half-lots-of-things” all over the world? That’s because evolution is simply not true—it’s a fairy tale, an attempt to explain life without God.

When we start with God’s Word, we don’t need to invent fanciful stories about what might have happened in the unobserved past. His Word provides us with the true history of the universe.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

AiG’s “Million Dollar” Tracts Are Scaring Secularists This Halloween

It’s almost Halloween, and the secularists are out scaring up drama about our unique Dino-Bucks and Noah’s Ark gospel tracts. These tracts look like—as one article pointed out—“fake” one million dollar bills (of course they’re obviously fake!). On the back, they feature what the author calls “some pretty rude messages”—i.e., the gospel.

Secularists are acting as if they have just discovered a secret mission of AiG: to reach kids with the gospel during Halloween! We’ve got news for them: for decades now, we’ve been reaching children with the gospel at Halloween (and throughout the year)! It’s almost a shock to these secularists, as if Christians haven’t been sharing the good news of the gospel with the world since Christ’s death and Resurrection! Actually, I have more news for the secularists: the message of salvation was first given about 6,000 years ago as recorded in Genesis 3:15—and has been shared by believers ever since! So, yes, we’re guilty! We’ve been found out! AiG is sharing the gospel with kids of all ages! And yes, Christians have been warning people about a real place called hell for two millennia, because God’s Word does!

The secularists only want children to hear their anti-gospel message! They want kids to be told they’re just animals in an evolutionary death-and-struggle world, bound for a purposeless, meaningless existence, and then oblivion as they die and cease to exist!

image

The article states, “Luring [children] with fake money and threatening them with eternal damnation and pain is evil. It’s wrong and it’s abusive.” It’s true that one of our tracts reads, “Have you lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? . . . The penalty for your crimes against God is death and eternal Hell.” But these tracts don’t merely tell children about hell (and certainly don’t threaten them)—these tracts ask the “million dollar question” about what happens after death, and tell people how to get to heaven through a relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s the good news. But you also have to hear the bad news in order to receive the good news. What a horrible person a physician would be if he told a dying person that he’s fine. That patient needs to know the bad news that he’s dying in order to realize he needs the cure! The purpose of these tracts is to give the “cure” of the gospel! (Sadly, these secularists only want to focus on the bad news.)

The article accuses me of thinking that “children are wretched, lying creatures” and of “damning children for celebrating a holiday that [Ken Ham] . . . assumes is pagan.” Well, though I wouldn’t put it in those terms, it’s true that all of us, even children, have sinful natures because of Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3). But neither I nor anyone else can send a person to hell—only a person’s sin of unbelief can condemn him to an eternity without God. The point is that God wants to save us from hell!

Show post

Dr. Russ Humphreys' #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creationists are trying to keep up with science . . .

This is a review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' "A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology."

In the first paper, he argued that the Bible does provide a foundation for cosmological thinking. It was suggested that the “expanse” (or “firmament” KJV) is the place where the sun, moon and stars are: interstellar space. The waters above the expanse were understood to be a water boundary to the created universe. The birds fly, not “in the expanse’, but “in the face of the expanse’-referring to the atmosphere of the Earth. (This perspective led to a reconsideration of the Canopy theory-which was rejected as neither biblically-based nor scientifically necessary.) ( Uh-oh, now we have no source of water for Noahs flood - Mr Spak)Several biblical texts refer to God stretching out the heavens: these were understood to mean that “God stretched out space itself at some time in the past”. This is an important point of the reinterpretation, as it is linked with a relativistic expansion of the universe during creation week.

Humphreys considered the word “deep” (tehom) in the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 2) and suggested that it should be understood as ordinary liquid water. The cosmological model that was developed from this framework considers all the galaxies in the universe to have been formed from the waters of this “deep”. Based on an estimated mass of the universe of 3 times 10 to the power 51 kilograms, Humphreys calculates that the “deep” would be a sphere of water with a radius of at least 1 light year. Since the expanse is formed in “the midst of the waters” (Genesis chapter 1 verse 6), it follows that the Earth must be at or near the centre of the universe.

Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.

The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.
1. Matter in the universe is bounded.
2. The universe has expanded.
3. The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
4. The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
5.The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
6.God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

The question of how a biblically-based cosmology could be constructed was addressed in the second paper. Humphreys drew attention to the necessity of presuppositions when formulating cosmological models.

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: “…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology”. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre-it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

The implications of the Copernican Principle for modern cosmology are profound. Humphreys argues that when these ideas are expressed mathematically and applied to the equations of general relativity, they result in Big-Bang cosmologies. Humphreys looks again at general relativity theory, but using different presuppositions. These are: the universe is of finite size and has a boundary; the Earth is near the centre; the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past; the cosmos is young. The picture that emerges is dramatically different from the Big Bang. The following scenario combines Humphreys” biblical framework and the results of his research into general relativity theory.

When the “deep” was created, it was a black hole. Under gravity, it collapsed and the temperature, pressure and density increased to the stage where thermonuclear reactions occurred and nucleosynthesis took place.

Intense light was everywhere inside the black hole. The collapse is considered to have lasted one day-and then, in a creative act of God, the black hole was converted into a white hole. The result was a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. This is when the waters above the expanse, the expanse and the waters below the expanse were differentiated. With expansion came cooling-and at about 3000 Kelvin, atoms would have been formed and the expanse would become transparent. Thermal radiation in the expanding expanse would be very uniform and the temperature would continue to drop. At the end of expansion, the temperature reached 2.76 kelvin (which we observe today).

At some time during the expansion, the shrinking event horizon would approach the centre of the white hole-the Earth. Whilst this is suggested to have occurred on the morning of the 4th Day (Earth time), the time dilation effects of relativity theory permit “billions of years worth of physical processes [to take] place in the distant cosmos". Stars and galaxies formed, and time elapsed so that light was able to travel to every corner of the universe. Hence, Adam and Eve, on the 6th Day (Earth time) were able to look into the expanse and see the splendour of the heavens.

The model thus claims to explain all three of the cosmological phenomena mentioned earlier: light from distant galaxies, galactic red shifts and the cosmic microwave background. It suggests that time elapsed at different rates on Earth and in the expanse (6 Days Earth time and billions of years cosmological time, possible because the Earth is at the centre of the universe).

Show post

Danny R Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Discussing the COBE background radiation data vs Genesis . . .

However, there are some lingering questions. For instance, while the COBE experiment was designed to measure temperature variations, the variations allegedly found were an order of magnitude less than those predicted. Yet this is hailed as a great confirmation of the big-bang model. Some have written that the COBE results perfectly matched predictions, but this is simply not true. Since the COBE results, some theorists have recalculated big-bang models to produce the COBE measurements, but this hardly constitutes a perfect match. Instead, the data have guided the theory rather than the theory predicting the data.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

image

[...]

Various media reported that Nye had a great concern that the Ark Encounter (and the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis ministry) will adversely influence children.

Isn’t it amazing, 1) considering all the ardently evolutionary museums across America and around the world, 2) recognizing that evolution is taught as fact to millions of students in the public schools (in the United States and across the globe), and 3) noting all the evolutionary programs on TV and articles in magazines and so on, that secularists like Bill Nye are greatly fearing one Creation Museum and now one Ark?

The secular arguments about origins and earth history are easily demolished. Thus secularists have to censor creation science beliefs from our schools. They fear they may easily lose people to creationist arguments.

Watch some of the most captivating and eye-opening video segments of my Ark tour with Mr. Nye in this recent blog post.

We have been blessed to have received many great testimonies from guests visiting the Ark Encounter in just its first week. Here is one that greatly encouraged me, and it came from a pastor: "[T]he Holy Spirit was strong in that place. I stayed choked up for the first two levels. The longer I stayed and the more I saw, the more I thought on the Word of God and what Christ did for us—I could hardly talk!"

Show post

Tim Chaffey #fundie answersingenesis.org

[In an article about how Ark Encounter was being "misrepresented."]

Rosenau implied that every sign at the Ark contains scientific errors, but there are plenty of wayfinding signs that are scientifically accurate. That is, the exit signs identify the exits and the restroom signs direct people to the restrooms.

Show post

Dr. Andrew Fabich #fundie answersingenesis.org

With the Ark opening, there’s been a flurry of news headlines. Some are fair, but most are slanted. It’s no surprise: the media write slanted headlines. Many are even taught to do this. But there’s been a significant switch lately.

I heard it first during the Ham-Nye debate. Bill Nye [“the Science Guy” of TV fame] kept referring to biblical creation as “Ham’s interpretation,” as if the young-earth interpretation somehow belongs to Ken Ham. In an effort to pigeonhole Ken as narrow-minded, they’re revealing just how narrow-minded they are. I can only fathom the shock of most journalists if they even checked unreliable Wikipedia to learn that Ken Ham isn’t “creation’s Lone Ranger.”

If Ken’s alone in saying the earth is young, then why am I writing this blog? Because he isn’t alone! You know what? Others throughout history have said the earth is young. Even prominent scientists alive today agree with this position—and not just here in America. There are young earth creationists in other industrialized nations all around the world. In fact, a quick Wikipedia search (which isn’t always 100% accurate) even shows that the same views that Ken holds were well respected within Christendom in the past and are still respected now.

You know, Christianity and biblical creation aren’t based on what Ken Ham has said, currently says, or will say. News flash: biblical creation depends on the authority of Scripture.

I’m offended by how journalists misrepresent my personal beliefs. My faith isn’t based on “thus saith Ken Ham.” What’s more is that evolutionists would be equally as appalled if we called it “Nye’s evolution!” From preschool through PhD in secular education, I’ve never been taught “Nye’s evolution.” Calling it “Ham’s interpretation” is a straw man argument used in ignorance for emotional reasons.

My point (like Ken’s and myriad others’) is that the Bible is authoritative. It’s ironic that journalists expect their readers to trust them as authorities (when they aren’t experts on the topics they report about) while holding others (like Ken who has studied the Bible and this topic for years and is using God’s Word as his authority) to a completely different standard.

The Bible is the authority. Period. I beg the media: stop calling this “Ham’s version.” Call it biblical creation. You’re marginalizing your readership. I’m not saying, “Get rid of your slant” (in fact, you could read on the Answers in Genesis’ website about how we’re all biased). I am asking, “Do everyone a favor—quit calling this ‘Ham’s interpretation.’”

Show post

Troy Lacey and Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheism Is Religion

Atheists Down Under Are Worried

Do atheists have beliefs? Of course they do!

Atheists believe that matter arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Not at all!

Atheists believe the universe, all life, the laws of nature, and laws of logic arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Of course not, but they believe it to be so.

Atheists believe they cease to exist after they die. Can they prove this? No, but they believe this is what happens.

Atheists believe no God exists. Can they prove this? Not at all—it’s their belief.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word religion this way:

1. a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Even though he has not labeled himself as such, Bill Nye, for all intents and purposes, is a practicing atheist. Look at this short video clip as I was speaking to him recently at the Ark Encounter where he admitted to believing life arose by natural processes—he has a belief, a religion. Atheists have a “system of belief held to with ardor and faith.” Atheists are very religious people.

Now, in the United States, atheists have conducted a propaganda campaign to try to brainwash the public into believing that people who believe in God are religious, but those who don’t believe in God are not religious. Because of this atheist propaganda, many have been indoctrinated to believe that when secularists get the Bible out of public schools, or crosses and nativity scenes out of public places, they removed religion so the situation could be neutral. However, the reality is that these secularists have imposed their atheistic religion on the schools and culture in general. As Jesus taught: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23) There is no neutral position. No person has no religion—everyone has a religion, and ultimately it comes down to those who are for the true God and those who are not.

ATHEISTS HAVE CONDUCTED A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE RELIGIOUS, BUT THOSE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

Now atheists from Down Under have been desperately trying to convince people in Australia that they have no religion.

Tuesday, August 9, is Census Night in Australia (though people have several weeks to complete it). Every five years, all Australian citizens are required to fill out the census form. As in America, census results help the government figure out where and how government funds are allocated. These allocations can seriously impact Christian organizations such as Christian schools, charities, chaplain offices, and other religiously affiliated organizations.

Of particular concern is question 19, which is the only optional question on the census form. This question is the religious identity question. Several different options are available, including six Christian denominations as well as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. There is also an “other” category to mark, and then additional information needs to be supplied in a text box. But what makes this question stand out is that “no religion” is the first option to choose from. Now this is absurd, because no one can claim they have no religion! So that option should be totally deleted from the census form

However, according to the Canberra Declaration newsletter,1 the reason why this choice occurs first is that the Atheist Foundation of Australia lobbied for it three years ago. It’s possible that some people may select this box simply because it appears first, especially if they are hurrying through the form or if at first glance they don’t see their own religious affiliation listed. This would be detrimental to religious organizations, as government subsidies may be cut or diminished based on the answer to this question. But a religious affiliation is a totally different matter from claiming one has no religion anyway! As well as listing various denominations, Islam, and so on, atheism should be listed as the religion (as opposed to “no religion”) for those who choose this affiliation.

Much Campaigning about Nothing

In fact this potential cutting of government funding may be just the hope of the Atheist Foundation. In the weeks leading up to tomorrow’s census, the Atheist Foundation of Australia launched a “Mark 'No religion'” website and have been conducting an advertising campaign to encourage people to do so. Some of the tactics appear aimed at making “unsure” or “undecided” people use this option. There has also been an attempt by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to encourage teens and children to be counted as “no religion,”2 claiming that only adults can validly claim a religion. Of course, part of the atheist campaign is to try to indoctrinate young people in particular that atheists don’t have a religion. But young people need to understand that atheism is a religion—and it’s a religion of purposelessness, meaninglessness, and hopelessness.

The “other” box on this form has also been gaining momentum among some segment of the population. Apparently there has been an increase in the number of “Jedi” in the past few censuses.3 Ironically the aforementioned Atheist Foundation is trying to get people to quit claiming Jedi as a religion, as they claim it will falsely inflate the undefined religion category at the expense of their false idea of no religion. Apparently “the Force” is not strong with them.

ATHEISM IS A RELIGION. IT’S A RELIGION WHICH EXPLAINS LIFE WITHOUT GOD.

But when you really stop to think about it, why is there such a push by the Atheist Foundation of Australia for marking the “no religion” box? To get the “no religion” box put at the very top seems like it should be satisfaction enough; but no, an all-out media blitz has been (and still is) underway. As we’ve pointed out many times before, atheism is a religion. It’s a religion which explains life without God. As mentioned here (and outlined above), one definition of religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Yes, atheism qualifies as a religion!

Furthermore, why should the Atheist Foundation even care? In an atheistic worldview, when you die that’s it (or as Bill Nye said at the Ark Encounter, “When you die you’re done”). There is no ultimate basis for morality, for life, or even for logic. And although Bill Nye falsely claims that he arrived at his belief in atheism (and life by natural processes) based on the evidence,4 why should he trust his senses anyway? What gives him the basis for accepting what he perceives as reality? What makes his interpretation of the evidence right and a creation scientist’s wrong?

Ultimately, to the Atheist Foundation of Australia, what difference should it make if one set of chemicals wrapped in a blanket of skin believes something different from another? In their worldview, our brains are just doing what the chemicals and electric impulses in them direct us to. They can’t even fall back on the relative morality of “what society decides goes” argument: at the last census (2011) only 22.3% claimed “no religion” as their option on the form.5 They also have to at least recognize that many of the religious organizations their strategy may impact are those that, even in an atheistic worldview, do good work. Homeless shelters, Christian-based hospitals, Red Cross centers, charities, and church food pantries all might be negatively impacted. So what does this show about their relative morality? It’s relatively worthless! And really what does it all matter in an ultimately fatalistic worldview?

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye and Bananas

Recently, I walked with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” through the three decks of our life-size Ark in Northern Kentucky. It turned out to be our second debate; the first one was 2014 in the Creation Museum. This latest debate lasted about two hours. (For the background, see “Bill Nye Visits the Ark Encounter.”)

After his Ark tour, Bill made many public statements about his visit. He reportedly said that the Ark was “much more troubling or disturbing than I thought it would be.” NBC News reported, “Nye said the exhibit encourages visitors to trust faith over science and thereby undercuts their ability to engage in critical thinking.”

But here’s what is really disturbing and troubling. Nye wants to convince all children to believe that they are just animals who arose by natural processes—and that there’s no God! The implications of this belief on the question of the meaning and purpose of life are beyond serious!

Nye also claims that the exhibits inside the Ark encourage visitors to “trust faith over science.” Actually, our exhibits show quite conclusively that observational science in the fields of geology, genetics, and anthropology confirm biblical history concerning man, animals, and the Flood of Noah’s day. In reality, it’s Bill Nye who has the blind faith to believe that somehow life arose by natural processes. And his evidence? That DNA, including its information and language system, arising by natural processes, came about to the fact that “we’re here.”

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Hammy vs the wrong creation myth . . .(much cutting and pasting - go to link for full effect)

Imagine my shock when I discovered that some Muslim leaders were using their own form of “creation evangelism” to convert people to Islam!

Stephen said that the speaker, in an excited, authoritative tone, declared: “The purpose of life is to be grateful to our Benefactor and conform to His rules.”

The Muslim leader went on to discuss that we need a system designed to help us be grateful to the Benefactor and to conform … and that system is Islam. He also emphasized that the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad were the authority.
Stephen and his pastor said that this was actually an Islamic “creation evangelism” lecture! It majored on design, which could have a major impact on many non-Muslims. But the argument of design was used to connect people to Islam!

As I’ve often said, AiG isn’t about converting people to “creation.” AiG seeks to teach people the truths of God’s Word so they’ll understand and believe the gospel.
Then I went into detail as to how people need to be taught that the Bible’s history in Genesis is true, that it’s confirmed by observational science and that the millions-of-years/evolutionary ideas that permeate the media and schools are not true.

As we often state on our website, AiG uses the design arguments (among many others) to proclaim the Christian faith—which is how we need to use such arguments.

AiG is at the cutting edge of evangelism today. We’re not just battling the secularization of the culture, but also against false religions like Islam. The message that God’s Word beginning in Genesis can be trusted is the answer for our world.


Show post

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

When it comes to authorship of the Bible, of course men were involved. Christians would be the first to point this out. For example, Paul wrote letters to early churches that are included in the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16). David wrote many of the Psalms. Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). In fact, it is estimated that over 40 different human authors were involved.2 So, this is not the issue.

The issue is this: did God have any involvement or not? Did God inspire the authors of the Scriptures?3 When someone claims that the Bible was written by men and not God, this is an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary.

It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! When one claims that God was not inspiring the human authors of the Bible, that person is claiming to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent!

Omniscient: they are claiming to be an all-knowing authority on the subject of God’s inspiration, to refute God’s claim that Scripture was inspired by Him (2 Timothy 3:16).
Omnipresent: they are claiming that they were present, both spiritually and physically, to observe that God had no part in aiding any of the biblical authors.
Omnipotent: they are claiming that if God had tried to help the biblical authors, then they had the power to stop such an action.

So, the person making the claim that the Bible was written by men is claiming to be God; but these three attributes belong solely to God. This is a religious issue of humanism versus Christianity. The person is claiming (perhaps inadvertently) that they are the ultimate authority over God and are trying to convince you that God is subservient to them. This needs to be addressed in responding to them.

Show post

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Spiritual Connection of Alien Abduction Claims

RESEARCHERS HAVE CATEGORIZED SOME COMMON ELEMENTS TO MOST CLAIMS OF ALIEN ABDUCTION.

Researchers1 have categorized some common elements to most claims of alien abduction. We need not discuss most of these here, but there are some important common themes. Many people report meeting a god-like creature or creatures during their abductions. Often these beings communicate universal-sounding messages or warn of impending nuclear or ecological disaster if mankind does not change his way. This amounts to a very hip, human-centered religious message.

Another common element is that most people who have claimed these close encounters with aliens profess spirituality, with a belief in God. As such, there is a wide distribution of denominations and sects represented among those who have claimed alien abduction. People reporting alien abductions also report indulging in the occult and new age practices in much higher proportion than the general population. Conspicuously absent from those reporting alien abductions are those who are truly born again followers of Christ. In fact, many researchers have collected reports of alien abductions abruptly ending when abductees verbally mention the name of Jesus.

These facts are extremely pertinent. If those who report alien abductions are sincere and truthful in relaying experiences that they firmly believe occurred, then we are left with the conclusion that there is a spiritual component, and that this spirituality is contrary to the Bible.

This is just one front in a spiritual war to divert people away from the truth of Scripture. We have already seen that the implication of the Bible is that Adam’s race is the only race of sentient, physical creatures in the universe. That is, there are no ETs to fly spaceships to earth. But if one believes in evolution, one must accept the likelihood that life, even intelligent life, has evolved many times on other worlds. Thus, if life exists elsewhere, then that would argue against the Bible and hence the God of the Bible. So a very effective tool in undermining the authority of the Bible and the gospel would be to convince as many people as possible that life exists elsewhere. What better way is there to do that than with flying saucers and “alien” visitations?

Show post

Andrew A. Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Biblical Flood Perspective

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.

When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.6

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?

Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.

Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.

Chalk It Up to Assumptions

So what is the underlying message we have dug up? Never be discouraged or dissuaded from believing what God’s Word teaches just because a few skeptics raise what seem to be difficult questions or insist they have evidence that contradicts the Bible. As in this case, closer examination reveals that what they claim as “evidence” is really their interpretation of the data based on their assumption that the Genesis Flood never occurred.

Like the scoffers Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3, they are willfully ignorant or deliberately rejecting God’s Word, and thus they refuse to consider any interpretation of the evidence that would point to the Genesis Flood having occurred. Instead, they are trying to prove what they have already assumed.

But for those of us who seek to know the Lord and understand His work, good answers can be found. Just look at common chalk. It offers phenomenal evidence for the veracity of the biblical Flood—yet another testimony that we can trust God and His Word. Chalk another one up to God’s Word.

Show post

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Humans Are Just Animals Then . . .

Well, it’s important to first note the inconsistency of most animal rights groups. These groups claim to be against animal abuse, but are these same people against the abuse of millions of children who are brutally murdered in their mother’s wombs through abortion?

It’s rather ironic that in PETA’s evolutionary worldview humans are just animals, yet PETA does not petition against the “animal cruelty” of killing unborn children. And what about a Save the Tapeworms Society or People for the Preservation of Fruit Flies?

If all life evolved, shouldn’t these groups be against killing these creatures too? Yet most animal rights groups are not trying to preserve pests like these. This highlights their inconsistency. And if they are evolutionists, then all life, animals and plants, are related in the one big supposed evolutionary tree of life. So what about rights for plants too?

Now some animal rights people claim they are Christians. If so, then they need to understand that God gave man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26), including over the animals. This dominion does not mean we can deliberately abuse, neglect, or harm creation, but rather, we’re to use what God has made for our good and His glory. In Genesis 1:29 and 30, God told man to eat plants/fruits. But in Genesis 9:3 after the Flood, God said we could eat all things (plants and animals).

Animal rights groups really want animals to have dominion over man. Yet, ironically, most would claim that man is just an animal. So if they want equal rights for animals, what rights should humans have if they believe man is just an evolved animal?

For example if animals kill other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just animals) should have equal rights to kill too? Why should we be held to some higher standard or different moral code from other animals?

If animals steal from other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just evolved animals) should have equal rights to steal? What about incest, cannibalism, or infant abandonment? Why are these things wrong for humans but not wrong for “other” animals? If animal rights activists were consistent, they should argue that it is okay to steal from animals, kill them, and eat them—since this is what we regularly observe in sin-cursed animals anyway.

Where Do Rights Come From?

In an evolutionary worldview, what makes animal rights activists think that rights exist in the first place? Rights are an abstract concept that comes from a biblical worldview, which is denied by the evolutionary position. The evolutionary position, which comes out of naturalism and materialism, cannot account for the concept of rights, because they are not material. In other words, the evolutionary materialist must borrow the concept of rights from Christians to argue against the Christian position of man being superior and in dominion over animals.

If animals are no different from humans, then why aren’t ringworms making the argument for animal rights, instead of people? We don’t observe the organization of ringworms called the Ringworms for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or RETA. In the animal rights activists’ heart of hearts, they know man is above animals. What they don’t know is why. It is because man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).

Evolutionary Morality—Hopelessly Inconsistent

Those who start with an evolutionary view of mankind have no absolute basis for morality. Because they have no foundation, they are forced to construct a moral code that is “right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25). This leads to all kinds of inconsistencies.

Evolutionists arbitrarily create or hold to a moral code for humans—which, in their view, includes not using anything that comes from or was even tested on animals—yet they believe we are just animals. So why should we be held to this arbitrary standard that no “other” animal is held to?

(...)

"Let Them Have Dominion”

Most animal rights groups start with an evolutionary view of mankind. They view us as the last to evolve (so far), as a blight on the earth, and the destroyers of pristine nature. Nature, they believe, is much better off without us, and we have no right to interfere with it. This is nature worship, which is a further fulfillment of the prophecy in Romans 1 in which the hearts of sinful man have traded worship of God for the worship of God’s creation.

But as people have noted for years, nature is “red in tooth and claw.”4 Nature is not some kind of perfect, pristine place. And why is this? Because mankind chose to sin against a holy God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, they brought death, suffering, and the Curse into creation (Genesis 2:17, 3:17).

Now all of creation groans, waiting for the coming day when Jesus will liberate it from the Curse (Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 22:3). Creation was never designed to live in disharmony. We, and the animals, were originally created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30) and to live forever without any suffering or disease. But because sin changed all of that, we battle its effects every day.

But this doesn’t mean that humans are a blight or disease. Despite our sin, we are the only ones created in the very image of God, utterly unique from the rest of creation. We were granted dominion over the earth and it’s inhabitants (Genesis 1:26). This was part of our “very good” (Genesis 1:31), pre-Fall purpose and mission, and it stems out of our position as image bearers of the Creator.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Major Ark Coverage Continues, Including Down Under

We rejoice when the secular media cover AiG and the upcoming Ark Encounter theme park in a balanced way. That was the case today with a long segment about the life-size Ark that was broadcast on the popular TV program in Australia Sunday Night, which airs on the national TV network Channel 7.

The program featured some stunning drone images of the Ark under construction and the design studio where our world-class exhibits are being built. We gave this crew almost three days of unprecedented access to our facilities and extended gracious hospitality, and then held our breath.

Now, there were comments that made us cringe. For example, there was a statement by the producers that the Old Testament is supposedly my “rule book for life,” suggesting that the teachings of the New Testament and its gospel message are secondary. And by the way, twice we urged the crew to interview at least one of our PhD scientists, like geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling (an Aussie like me), to show how science confirms the Bible in Genesis, but they chose not to. And it would have been good for the producers to point out that hundreds of people who have been contracted to help us build the Ark did not have to sign our statement of faith.

But watch for yourself and be encouraged by the coverage and see some good video shots of the Ark. By the way, notice how Bill Nye “the Science Guy” comes across as condescending and snide as he shows his disdain for those of us who believe God’s Word beginning in Genesis—once again illustrating the struggle of the secular world to understand Christians.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

“World’s Largest Atheist Party” Is Really a Worship Service!

The Reason Rally 2016, advertised as the “world’s largest atheist party,” is really a kind of worship service. Why do I say this? Well, they worship man. Their rally in Washington, DC, in June will see people worshipping the god of self. They will exalt reason and declare that they have a blind faith that the universe and life arose by natural processes.

You know, we need to be calling atheism for what it really is—a religion, an anti-God religion—a religion that exalts fallible human reason.

In fact, atheist Lawrence Krauss, who is speaking at this rally, once said on video, “Forget Jesus—the stars died so you can be here.” You see, he is worshipping the stars. These atheists at the rally are no different from those the prophet Jeremiah spoke of: “Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ And to a stone, ‘You gave birth to me’” (Jeremiah 2:27).

And what will the message of the rally be? “Become an atheist, die, and that’s the end—there’s no ultimate purpose to life.” So that being the case, why do atheists even attack Christianity? Why rally in DC in June? Well, it is because they actively “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Atheists work hard against Christianity because they’re putting their hands over their eyes and ears and shouting, “I refuse to see and hear truth!” Their blind faith religion of believing that natural processes explain life without God is an anti-God religion.

The words of Daniel (5:23) describe today’s atheists: “The God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.”

So, the atheists will worship man at the Reason Rally, just as stated in Scripture: “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25). But God says, “You have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven” (Daniel 5:23).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Agrees: “There’s No Such Thing as Race”

In a recent interview on Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, host Larry Wilmore asked TV’s popular Bill Nye “The Science Guy” the question, “Does racism exist in the animal kingdom?” In Nye’s reply he made this statement, “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race.” Bill Nye’s answer showed how much evolutionists have changed their position when it comes to the idea of different human races. Actually, this part of Nye’s answer is much more a biblical than an evolutionary view of humanity.

Changing Evolutionary Views

Bill Nye’s statement that “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race” has been confirmed many times by observational science. For example, when researchers completed the incredible feat of mapping the human genome in 2000, they declared that, based on genetics, “there is only one race—the human race.”1 But this conclusion is not what was predicted in an evolutionary worldview.

DARWIN’S IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION WERE INHERENTLY RACIST.

Darwin’s ideas about human evolution were inherently racist. He held that different groups of humans evolved at different times so some were closer to their ape-like ancestors than others. The late Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, stated, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2

Evolutionary ideas about race led to all kinds of horrors such as members of pygmy tribes being put in zoos beside apes,3 injustices toward groups like the Australian aborigines,4 and atrocities like Hitler’s attempted extermination of groups like the Jews, Poles, Slavs, and Gypsies. Each of these horrors—and many more—stemmed directly from Darwinian ideas about evolution. So, according to evolutionary predictions, we should expect to see many different races of humans, each at different levels of evolutionary development. Darwin even predicted that the “Caucasian” should have exterminated all other races. This is a failed prediction by the “high priest” of evolution.

Evolutionary ideas about race have largely changed, however, as a result of Christian challenges. As Bill Nye’s statement shows, observational science did not confirm the idea that there were many different races, but instead confirmed the biblical prediction of one race. The shade of our skin does not reflect evolutionary progress but is primarily the result of our genetic makeup that determines how much of a brown-colored pigment called melanin that our skin produces. More melanin produces a dark brown, “blackish” shade, and less melanin produces a lighter brown, “whitish” shade. There is no such thing as different races! This observation from science goes completely against what evolutionists of the past predicted, so evolutionists today were forced to change their ideas to align with the biblical view.

Unchanging Word of God

GOD’S WORD HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE.

Now, if instead of starting with man’s fallible ideas about the past, secular scientists had turned to God’s Word and started their thinking with the infallible Word of God, they would not have made these erroneous conclusions that later needed to be corrected by observational science. God’s Word has always taught that there is only one race—the human race. We did not evolve but were specially and uniquely created in God’s image from the very beginning (Genesis 1:26–27). God did not create different races, but “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Every single human being is a descendant of the first couple, Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27, 3:20), so we are all related. According to God’s Word, there are not different biological races, there is only one. God’s unchanging Word had it right all along and man’s changing ideas about the past had to catch up with it.

The Tower of Babel

During his interview with Larry Wilmore, Bill Nye said, “So everybody’s from East Africa . . . You migrate into Mesopotamia . . . You have to have lighter skin. It’s this balance between Vitamin D production in your skin and the breaking down of . . . folic acid. Then you migrate across Eurasia . . . Then there’s an ice age. All the snow’s frozen up in the mountains so you can walk to . . . [Alaska]. And then you come down the west coast. [Racism] started because you have these tribes and they have different skin colors as a result of ultraviolet light.” Now, while there are several evolutionary assumptions in Bill Nye’s statements (such as the idea that humanity began in East Africa) and we would certainly not agree with the timeline that Bill Nye holds to for these events, his statements actually sound similar to something a creationist might say!

According to God’s Word, all of humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. This first couple rebelled against God and introduced sin, death, and suffering into creation. Their descendants became increasingly wicked until “every intent of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), so God sent a global Flood to judge their wickedness. Only eight people, the righteous Noah and his family, were saved through the Flood. After the Flood, God commanded Noah and his family, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). But instead of filling the earth, like they had been commanded to, Noah’s descendants gathered together and built a city and a tower (in Mesopotamia, no less). So God confused their languages, thus forcing them to spread out over the earth (Genesis 11:1–9).

Shortly after the Flood and the Tower of Babel, much of the world was engulfed in the Ice Age that was part of the aftermath of the Flood. This would have exposed land bridges, such as the Bering Strait between modern-day Russia and Alaska. As people migrated from Babel, some of the groups walked across this land bridge into the Americas or came by boat where they eventually spread out from North America to South America.

THE TOWER OF BABEL EXPLAINS WHY WE ARE SO DIFFERENT.

The Tower of Babel explains why we are so different. The different people groups did not begin as humanity migrated from East Africa. They began after God confused the languages and groups began to migrate from Babel on the Plain of Shinar in the Middle East. This also divided up the family group and split the gene pool, including various skin shades. Depending on where these groups lived and populated, the resultant genes were left to their descendants.

Because these groups were reproductively isolated due to the language barrier as well as later geographical barriers, different features, like skin shade or eye shape, were associated with different groups. Babel explains our differences! Different people groups are not the result of evolution. They are the result of the division of languages at the time of the Tower of Babel.

(...)

Eventually, the same forces that supposedly produced humans should cause humans to evolve into something new, different, and more fit for the environment. So for Bill Nye to say that “All you’re going to get’s a human. You’re not going to get some new thing” is completely inconsistent with his amoeba-to-astronaut evolutionary worldview, but it is completely consistent with both God’s Word and observational science. According to God’s Word, each organism—including humans—reproduces according to its kind. So we should not expect to see humans producing anything but humans. And this is exactly what the evidence confirms: humans produce humans.

God’s Word Has Been Teaching One Race All Along
Observational science did not confirm evolutionary religious ideas about the past. So evolutionists simply changed evolutionary ideas to match the new data. But what they should have done is realized that the observational evidence confirms what God’s Word has been teaching all along. If they had started with God’s Word, they would have had the right foundation for their thinking and would not have reached such erroneous conclusions. It is God’s infallible Word—not man’s changing and fallible ideas—that is true and is confirmed by the observational evidence.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Giant Siberian “Unicorn” Discovered

The media has been buzzing with news of a “giant Siberian unicorn” fossil that was recently discovered. This massive creature, similar to a rhino in appearance, was 6.5 feet tall, 15 feet long, and would’ve weighed up to 9,000 pounds. A giant horn protruded from its forehead. Illustrations depict it covered with hair. Supposedly this new fossil evidence, dated using a flawed dating method, puts this “unicorn” with humans 29,000 years ago.

Well, the fact that news outlets are calling this extinct creature a unicorn is certainly interesting! Atheists have long mocked older translations of the Bible for mentioning unicorns in several places. And they’ve also mocked the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in regards to unicorns (even though we don’t feature unicorns at the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter hasn’t opened for them to know what exhibits it will feature!).

We’ve written articles and even a book chapter defending the biblical unicorn and pointing out that it could very well have been an Elasmotherium, a very large extinct variety of rhino—the same extinct creature that news outlets are calling a “Siberian unicorn”! It’s a real creature that lived in recent history—not a fanciful creature, like many think of today when they hear the word “unicorn” because of the fairy tales featuring unicorns.

Regardless of the exact identity of the biblical unicorn, which we likely will never know for sure, we know God’s Word is always accurate in what it says. Perhaps you can use this new finding as a way to start a gospel conversation. For example, ask your friends and family if they’ve seen the news article and then use it to segue into discussing the Bible. Perhaps discuss how real-life creatures, or even people, can be relegated to a mythical status after their lifetime even though there was nothing mythical about them. Mention that people often regard Jesus as a mythical figure, perhaps just a good teacher but certainly not the miracle worker described in Scripture. But assure them that God’s Word can be trusted when it talks about Jesus as the Savior who came to take away the sins of the world.

You can learn more about the biblical unicorn in The New Answers Book 3 chapter titled, “Unicorns in the Bible?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Dr. Jean Lightner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Why Did God Make Viruses?

There are some fundamental differences in how creationists and evolutionists view life. Biblical creationists believe that God created various forms of life according to their kinds with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18).

In contrast, evolutionists view life as all descending from a single common ancestor by chance processes. Evolutionary arguments tend to imply that life isn’t really very complex or well designed. For example, 100 years ago a cell was promoted as being nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, implying that it wouldn’t be difficult for it to arise by chance. This proved to be wrong; cells are incredibly complex structures. At one time evolutionists argued that organs or structures with no known function actually had no function; at the time, this included hundreds of organs and structures in the human body. Instead, these were believed to be vestiges of evolution. This argument has become rather vestigial itself, as these organs have been found to have function.

Yet this argument reappeared in genetics. Most of the DNA in our bodies does not code for proteins, so it was labeled “junk DNA” by evolutionists who assumed it has no function. As research continues, it is becoming clear that this DNA has numerous essential functions. The evolutionary worldview has a dismal track record for anticipating the astounding complexity in life uncovered by scientific research.

If God created everything good and with a purpose, why are there disease-causing bacteria and viruses in the world? It is true that we first learned about bacteria and viruses because of the problems they cause. Bacteria have been studied in considerable detail and are now recognized to be mainly helpful and absolutely essential for life on Earth; bacteria that cause disease (which developed as a result of the Fall) are the exceptions, not the rule. But what about viruses: what purpose could they possibly have?

(...)

Creationist Puzzle

The biblical record tells of a global Flood when all created kinds of unclean land animals were reduced to a population of two, the pair that was preserved with Noah on the Ark (Genesis 7). After the Flood, these animals reproduced and filled the earth again (Genesis 8:15–19). Today, many of these kinds are represented by whole families. For example, the dog family (Canidae) is believed to represent a created kind. However, this is a very diverse group of animals. There are foxes that are adapted to living in the arctic, and others that live in the desert. There is incredible variety seen in modern domestic dog breeds. Where did all this variety come from? And how could it arise so quickly given that the Flood occurred around 4,300 years ago?

The answer to this puzzle is probably quite complex. Some of the variety would have been carried by the pair of animals on the Ark. When parents pass traits on to their offspring, these traits can appear in new combinations in the offspring (Mendelian genetics). Natural selection can weed some existing traits out of a population. However, a close examination reveals that genetic changes have also arisen in this time. Many of these changes do not appear accidental and do not directly cause disease. For this reason, some creationists have proposed that God “designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.”

Isn’t That Evolution?

It is important to recognize that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are often blurred together as if they are synonymous. Evolution is sometimes defined as “change in the genetic makeup (or gene frequency) of a population over time.” This has been observed; both creationists and evolutionists recognize this as important in building models to help us understand what likely happened in the past. A second definition of evolution involves the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through naturalistic processes. This has not been observed. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the testimony God (the eyewitness to creation) gives us in the Bible. The idea that all life has a common ancestor requires the assumption that the Bible’s history is false, and the assumption that changes which do occur could produce the variety of life we see today from a single-celled ancestor.

(...)

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome. Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

The Bible Explains the Paradox

The biblical view explains an important paradox we see in the world around us. It anticipates the complexity that is constantly being uncovered by scientific research; God is an all-wise Creator and would be expected to use awesome design patterns and programming. It also explains the decay observed because mankind sinned and brought death into the world; the world is now in bondage to decay (Romans 8:20–21). This is an exciting time to be a creationist researcher, as the tremendous volume of scientific research is helping to provide answers to questions that have been asked for decades.

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Ancient Shopping Lists Confirm God’s Word

When soldiers at a remote desert fortress in Judah penned their shopping lists (or, more accurately, their provisions lists) over 2,600 years ago, they probably did not think that archaeologists would be poring over their handwriting years later!

Using a computer algorithm program, researchers from Tel Aviv University have been studying these ancient lists of military provisions written on pieces of pottery (called ostraca).1 By analyzing the handwriting, they were able to deduce that at least six individuals were involved in writing these inscriptions. The inscriptions themselves are rather mundane, merely featuring instructions on what supplies to send to a remote desert fortress; but the writing is accurate and well done. Much of the writing was penned by rather low-ranking officials, suggesting that even humble soldiers serving in a remote corner of the country could both read and write.

Literate or Illiterate?

Scholars have long disputed the level of literacy among ancient Israelites. Many believe only the educated—scribes, priests, royalty, and the bureaucracy—were literate and that the general populace was unable to read and write. But Scripture implies that literacy would be a necessity, even among the general populace.

SCRIPTURE IMPLIES THAT LITERACY WOULD BE A NECESSITY, EVEN AMONG THE GENERAL POPULACE.

Genesis 5:1 mentions the “book of the generations of Adam” (using the normal Hebrew word for book or scroll), suggesting that Adam was created with the ability not only to speak but also to write. It also seems reasonable that the genealogical information in Genesis 5 and 11 was also written down. And given that Noah and his family built the Ark, is it likely that they could not write? The Israelites were commanded to write the commands of the Lord on their doorposts and bind them on their hands and foreheads (Deuteronomy 6:4–9, 11:18–20). If they could not read or write, what would be the point of these commands? When Joshua prepared to allot the inheritance to seven of the Israelite tribes, he asked each tribe to send out three men to survey the land. These men “wrote the survey in a book” (Joshua 18:9); they could read and write. And in Joshua’s farewell address, he commanded the people to obey everything written in the Book of the Law of Moses, implying they could read (Joshua 23:6). When King Hezekiah made the decision that Israel and Judah would again keep the Passover, he sent letters across the land to inform the people. This would have been useless if they could not read his letter (2 Chronicles 30:1). Other passages also suggest literacy among the ancient Israelites (Judges 8:14; 2 Kings 17:37; Psalm 102:18; Habakkuk 2:2).

Widespread Literacy Supports True Scriptural Timelines

This question of literacy may seem mundane and unimportant, but it is actually a very important discussion. Many scholars have used the illiteracy argument (among many other presuppositions) to assume that the vast majority of biblical texts were not written until after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC. They claim that the Old Testament, with the exception of some form of the Pentateuch, could not have been written prior to the exile to Babylon because most of the Israelite population was illiterate. Therefore it must have been written after the Babylonians, and later Persians, educated the Israelites.

This late dating of the Old Testament texts clashes with the biblical testimony that many texts were written as history happened or even before the event (prophetic). Most conservative biblical scholars who start with God’s Word believe the Old Testament record that the books were written by the persons associated with them or those who claim to have written them. They also accept that these books were written during the time period they claim to have been written in (e.g., the prophet Isaiah during the reigns of the pre-exilic kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah). If these books were not written until decades or even centuries after the events happened, the historicity, accuracy, and infallibility of the texts are called into question since they claim to have been written much earlier.

These ostraca researchers claim that their findings bear on the discussion of when the Old Testament books were written. They write, “However, widespread literacy offers a better background for the composition of ambitious works such as the Book of Deuteronomy and the history of Ancient Israel in the Books of Joshua to Kings.”2 They argue that, due to widespread literacy, many Old Testament books could have been written much earlier than is generally assumed by many liberal scholars.

Archaeology Again Corroborates Scripture

This new study supports the accuracy of God’s Word. It demonstrates that Israel was more literate than many scholars believe. This means that prophets—even prophets who were common folk such as Amos, a shepherd (Amos 1:1)—could have been literate and able to pen their writings.

IF HISTORY HAS TAUGHT ANYTHING, IT’S THAT EVENTUALLY RESEARCH AND SCIENCE WILL CONFIRM SCRIPTURE.

If history has taught anything, it’s that eventually research and science will confirm Scripture. We have an imperfect and incomplete understanding of history and science, but God’s Word was ultimately written by the God who was there and who never lies (Titus 1:2). Beginning with God’s Word, we have an accurate starting point for studying the world around us. When science or popular thought seems to contradict God’s Word, it is not God’s Word that needs modification, but rather our interpretations of the evidence.

The more we study the remains of lost civilizations, the more evidence will be found that, when properly understood, confirms God’s Word. As Christians, we can have full and utter confidence in the Word of our Lord.

Show post

Jeremy D. Lyon & Bill Hoesch #fundie answersingenesis.org

Flood Tales from the Canyon

Flood Evidence

Grand Canyon stands as an enduring monument to the worldwide Flood. Along with the geology, it turns out that native traditions also speak of a great flood!

Geology is typically what people think about when studying how Grand Canyon formed. But the region also preserves cultural evidence in Native American flood traditions, which are still being retold.

The Hualapai—“people of the tall pines”—occupy remote lands in western Grand Canyon where Ponderosa pine, elk, bighorn sheep, and cougar abound. At the foot of Wikahme, or Spirit Mountain, in southernmost Nevada, are ancient pictographs with a flood story interpreted for us in a published account by tribal elder and scholar, Lucille Watahomigie.

Prior to this, the story had been recounted only in oral tradition via dance and song. It contains these elements. Rains fell on the earth for 45 days. The rising waters wiped out all peoples with the lone exception of an old man atop Spirit Mountain. The Creator eventually sent a bird to the man with instructions to dig with a ram’s horn into the foot of the mountain to enable the waters to drain. The man obeyed and soon the bird returned a second time with grass in its beak to inform the man that the waters had receded.

A second pictograph depicts a vessel carrying eight passengers “across the waters,” from whom all the peoples of the earth were descended. It is unclear how the two pictographs are related. Mrs. Watahomigie insists the account came to her by oral tradition from her forefathers and that it borrowed no elements from Christian influences.

The Havasupai—“people of the blue-green waters”—live in western Grand Canyon, along beautiful Havasu Creek. According to their tradition, the medicine man prepared a hollow log for a young girl, animals, and provisions to survive the great flood. The rains came and the log floated on the water many days. The floodwaters covered the whole earth, killing all people. The log eventually came to rest at Grand Canyon, and this young girl became the mother of all peoples. In an interview, Dianna Uqualla, director of the Havasupai tribal museum, shared the Havasupai belief that Grand Canyon was formed by the receding waters of this great worldwide flood. In fact, other neighboring tribes have similar stories about the forming of Grand Canyon.3

These Native American stories are part of a growing list of hundreds of ancient flood traditions all over the world that share common elements with the Genesis account. While details vary, these traditions all share elements of the whole earth being flooded and only a few survivors. It appears that cultures around the world have a distant memory of a common event in history, which God’s Word flawlessly records in Genesis 6–8.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Chimpanzees Throwing Rocks: Religious Ritual or Testimony to God’s Design?

Do chimpanzees throwing rocks at trees prove they engage in religious ritual? Well, various media reports on one such study would certainly have us believe they do! The media has been buzzing with this story, and since we keep seeing news reports about it weeks later, I thought I would comment on the story.

Are Humans Animals?
Researchers studying chimpanzees in West Africa discovered a previously unknown behavior: chimpanzees, particularly the males, throw rocks at trees and into holes in trees. This throwing is accompanied by, among other things, hooting. These researchers suggest that perhaps this is evidence of ritualized behavior in chimpanzees. They also believe chimp behavior can shed light on human ancestry and how we supposedly developed religious rituals.

In a blog post, one of the researchers involved in the study says, “It could be more symbolic than [a dominance display]—and more reminiscent of our own past. Marking pathways and territories with signposts such as piles of rocks is an important step in human history. Figuring out where chimps' territories are in relation to rock throwing sites could give us insights into whether this is the case here. Even more intriguing than this, maybe we found the first evidence of chimpanzees creating a kind of shrine that could indicate sacred trees.”

Now from this study and the accompanying blog post, the media went wild with the idea that this somehow proves that chimpanzees have some kind of proto-religious belief that gave rise to religious rituals in early humans. Of course, this belief is nonsense. We aren’t related to chimpanzees, so their behavior teaches us nothing about what our supposed ancestors did. Humans were created in the image of God from the very beginning with both intelligence and knowledge of God. This knowledge did not need to evolve over time from some kind of ape-like ancestors.

The observational evidence shows that some chimpanzees hoot and throw rocks at holes in trees. The idea that it’s an example of proto-religious behavior or ritual is simply an interpretation (and a false one at that) of the evidence—and certainly not the likeliest interpretation. Those involved in the study note that there are other interpretations of the evidence, such as that this behavior is a display of dominance (chimps have long been known to drum on hollow tree roots to assert dominance) or that it serves as a communication function.

Now I don’t think that these chimps are throwing rocks at trees in some kind of religious ritual, but whatever this behavior is accomplishing, we can be sure that it has nothing to do with our supposed evolutionary ancestry! Because God created chimps—like many other creatures such as dolphins, dogs, and crows—to be intelligent, this somewhat creative display of dominance or communication is not surprising. It’s another example of animals using what’s in their environment to accomplish a task.

Scripture does poetically talk about animals knowing their Creator and creation praising God but never in the context of ritual or shrines; therefore it seems highly unlikely that these chimps are recognizing God in their behavior. Humans, alone made in God’s image, are the only beings in God’s creation capable of communicating with Him and having a relationship with Him. However, the psalmist writes,

Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light!
Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!

Let them praise the name of the Lord,
For He commanded and they were created. . . .

Praise the Lord from the earth,
You great sea creatures and all the depths;
Fire and hail, snow and clouds;
Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
Mountains and all hills;
Fruitful trees and all cedars;
Beasts and all cattle;
Creeping things and flying fowl. . . .

Let them praise the name of the Lord,
For His name alone is exalted;
His glory is above the earth and heaven. (Psalm 148:3–5, 7–10, 13)

All of creation—from the moon and stars to the insects and fruit trees—praises and proclaims the glory of God. Instead of seeing some kind of evolutionary significance to chimpanzees throwing rocks, these researchers should join with all of creation giving praise to the Lord Jesus Christ who made the earth and everything in it for His glory.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Simon Turpin #fundie answersingenesis.org

Those who reject a historical Adam do so because they have elevated the wisdom of men over the revelation of God. However, Paul reminded the Corinthian church that human wisdom cannot benefit us before God, as He rejects all that rests on human wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:20–25, 3:19). Instead, Paul reminded them that Christ, who is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24; Colossians 2:3), is far superior to that of any philosophy. The wisdom of the Greeks could not recognize the most profound wisdom of all when they were challenged with it. The truth of the creation of the first man, Adam, embodies true wisdom—the wisdom of God, not the wisdom of the age.

Show post

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.

“The Age of the Dinosaurs is Now”
A new exhibit, “Dinosaurs Among Us,” at the American Museum of Natural History showcases the idea that dinosaurs are still among us in the form of birds. Their website says,

The evolution of life on Earth is full of amazing episodes. But one story that really captures the imagination is the transition from the familiar, charismatic dinosaurs that dominated the planet for around 170 million years into a new, small, airborne form: birds.
The video below, posted on YouTube by the American Museum of Natural History, features the text “the age of dinosaurs is now.”


And in another of their videos we are told, “The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct 65 million years ago. We still have them around today. You can see them in your backyard; you can see them everywhere.”


To back up this claim that dinosaurs and birds are basically one and the same, the museum provides supposed behavioral and anatomical evidence. But rather than supporting their imagined link between dinos and birds, the so-called evidence they provide really highlights their interpretation of the evidence. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and then they view some observable facts through that lens while ignoring the massive differences between the two groups. As with anything in the creation/evolution controversy, the issue isn’t about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Shared Behavior = Shared Ancestry?
To back up their claim that birds are just dinosaurs, they point to similar behaviors, such as nesting and caring for young—something birds and crocodiles do and something some dinosaurs appear to have done. They say, “Shared behaviors like these are evidence of common ancestry.” They also point to similarities in bird and dinosaur eggs as another “link in the chain of evidence connecting them.” But as we’ve pointed out many times, this is an interpretation of the evidence that simply assumes evolution to be true. They assume we see similarities because of shared ancestry. But there’s certainly another option: such similarities are reflections of a shared Creator. This Creator made all life to live in the same world, eat the same food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air; so we shouldn’t be surprised to see similarities across the animal world. Similarities in no way “prove” evolution. The claim that they do is merely an interpretation of the evidence.

“Big, Bad, . . . and Feathered”
Of course no discussion of dino-birds would be complete without trotting out the feathered dinosaurs. And this exhibit is full of them. Every dinosaur featured in the photos boasts a fluffy, bird-like coat or at least a small clump of feathers. Feathers have become a standard feature on modern depictions of theropod dinosaurs and even occasionally on other dinosaurs; but the evidence is contentious. (And it’s not just creationists who aren’t convinced! Many evolutionists, such as Alan Feduccia, a leading bird evolution expert, deny feathered dinosaurs).

The website mentions that a cousin of T. rex “sported a shaggy coat of the filaments called ‘proto-feathers.’” But considering that these fossilized filaments do not exhibit any of the features of feather anatomy (such as hooks, barbs, or barbules), they could easily—and much more likely—be collagen fibers, a sort of connective tissue commonly found in skin as well as many other places. The supposed “feathers” on “feathered” dinosaurs aren’t feathers at all. They are filaments that, because of evolutionary presuppositions about the history of life, have been labeled as “proto-feathers” on the path to becoming true feathers.

Smart Dinosaurs with Super Lungs
Another part of the “Dinosaurs Among Us” exhibit claims that “kinship . . . goes much deeper” than just eggs and feathers. Computed tomography (CT) scans of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reveal some internal similarities. Indeed, a video on the website goes so far as to claim that certain dinosaurs “all have a brain that is identical to the earliest birds.” One page on their website goes into more detail about what they mean by “identical.”

Birds have large brains for their body size; much of this additional size is in the cerebrum, “the part of the brain responsible for learning,” as well as the optic lobe, which is responsible for sight. Reptiles of the equivalent size do not have this increased brain size.

THIS TEACHES US NOTHING ABOUT THEIR HAVING DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.
CT scans of fossilized dinosaur skulls show that “one group of theropods displays the trend toward inflation of the ‘thinking’ brain we see in living birds.” So by “identical” they mean that in some theropods there’s a trend toward having an enlarged cerebrum as birds do. This teaches us nothing about their having descended from a common ancestor. It just shows that, as they say, “Theropod dinosaurs were probably capable of advanced learned behavior.” (Read more about dinosaurs and birdbrains in “Were Birdbrains on the Dinosaur Pre-flight Checklist for Evolution?”)

They move on to show the “unbroken . . . link between birds and dinosaurs” in the “super lungs” of birds, dinosaurs, and birds’ “living relatives”—crocodiles and alligators. They claim that the supposed last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles “also had birdlike lungs.” But crocodile and alligator lungs are nothing like bird lungs!

Bird lungs are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Instead of sequentially breathing in and out to fill and empty lungs like we do, they have a unidirectional airflow that constantly supplies fully oxygenated air to the bird’s hard-working flight muscles and the rest of its body. Air sacs, scattered throughout a bird’s body, briefly store fully oxygenated air and then continue to supply this fresh air to the bird even while the bird exhales carbon dioxide. This remarkably complex and highly efficient design is without equal, even among some reptiles that share some of its features.

Crocodiles also have a unidirectional airflow, but that’s where the similarities stop. Crocodiles have a diaphragm, as we do, to pull air into their bodies. Birds don’t have or need this muscle. Crocodile lungs look like a bag with chambers; bird lungs look utterly different as they branch throughout the body. And this is just a very brief overview. You can learn more in Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s illustrated article “Lizard Breath Fails to Support Kinship with Birds.”

To claim that reptile lungs are bird-like is to ignore vast anatomical and functional differences and to concentrate on a few very minor similarities. Each design serves the animals quite well, but no observational evidence has shown any way that these systems could evolve from a common ancestor.

The Similarities Just Don’t Stop!
The above similarities between birds and dinosaurs have been rather underwhelming. But they claim there are more! Actually, they say, “Once you start seeing the resemblances between non-bird dinosaurs and living birds, you won’t be able to stop!” This claim is only true if you are an evolutionist looking for any similarity to connect the dots between the two groups.

The website highlights another section of the exhibit, “Dinosaur Bones, Beaks, and Claws.” Their list includes the discovery of what might be hollow bones in some dinosaurs, toothless beaks in some dinosaurs, and claws. Birds have hollow bones which, containing air sacs, are integral to their respiratory system and, as a bonus, are quite lightweight, allowing them to fly. Dinosaurs might have hollow bones, but our bones are not solid structures either. The “hollow” spaces in our bones are filled with marrow, as dinosaur bones likely were too, though marrow isn’t commonly fossilized. Birds, however, have pneumatic bones. These bones are filled with air and are an essential part of their unique respiratory system—a system dinosaurs did not share.

Another similarity that they note is the surprising presence of a wishbone, or furcula, in theropods. The furcula is formed from the fusion of the collarbones (clavicles). Many evolutionists consider this the “smoking gun” for the dino-to-bird evolution story because the furcula has only been found on birds and theropod dinosaurs.

In birds, the furcula shows great diversity in size and shape, depending on the bird’s method of flight (or lack thereof). The flight muscles are anchored to this bone. In some birds it acts as a spring, allowing the powerful flight muscles to flex without snapping the bone. There is evidence that birds also use this bone to augment air movement during breathing.

Clearly scientists could not know that theropod dinosaurs used their furculae for flight or avian respiration. Since all we have is fossil evidence, it is difficult to definitively determine the purpose of the theropod furcula, but some scientists have suggested it increased forelimb mobility. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia has noted that even though some theropods have furculae, their distinctly un-birdlike shoulder anatomy makes it “unlikely that any of these structures could have articulated or functioned in a manner similar to the bird furcula or the hypertrophied furcula of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.”1 Others, assuming an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs, suggest dinosaurs used them to aid breathing as they suspect birds do. Interestingly, one paper notes that “only the early ornithurines possess a furcula typical of extant avian clades.”2 In everyday language this means that only “early ornithurines”—birds in a biblical view—have wishbones typical of living birds. Of course, this is not surprising.

JUST BECAUSE BIRDS AND THEROPODS BOTH POSSESS FURCULAE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
Just because birds and theropods both possess furculae does not mean that they are related to one another. God simply used a similar design in two distinct groups of animals. Anatomical differences indicate that their furculae would have differed in not only structure but also function. Instead of searching for similarities between theropods and birds, scientists should study dinosaur furculae to determine what God designed this bone to do, because, whatever its function, it was perfectly designed to do what it was created for.

They go on to claim, “The similarities are especially striking when it comes to legs, feet, and claws.” But bird and dinosaur legs really aren’t that similar. Bipedal dinosaurs did walk on their toes, like birds do, so we expect some similarity in the structure of the foot and ankle. But the femur (thigh bone) and knee of a bird are inside its body and are essential to its breathing structure. The femur of the dinosaur (which is anatomically almost identical to a human, though this is not pointed out), as well as its knees, are outside the body and appear to have nothing to do with breathing.

It should be noted that dinosaurs are very different from other reptiles, particularly in the placement of their legs. Rather than spreading out to the sides, as they do in other reptiles, they were directly under the body. The obvious anatomical differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles should hint that there would be other differences in bone structure, organ placement, and other areas. This doesn’t mean that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds any more than saying that bats, very different from other mammals but with some similarities to birds, prove that bats evolved from birds— something no evolutionist would argue.

Similarity in anatomy does not mean shared ancestry.

God’s Word, Our Starting Point
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs comes directly from a naturalistic evolutionary interpretation of the fossils and of living birds. The idea does not come from the facts themselves but from an interpretation of the facts that assumes evolution to be true. Exhibits such as “Dinosaurs Among Us” are nothing more than propaganda pieces for this popular evolutionary idea. Sadly, many kids will tour through this exhibit without realizing that this is merely an interpretation and not observational science.

Though some Christians try to mesh evolution with a Creator, this idea completely contradicts God’s Word, which says that kinds will always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21, 25) and that birds were created on Day Five and land animals—which would include dinosaurs—were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:20–25). Instead of interpreting the world through the faulty lens of man’s ideas about the past, we need to turn to God’s perfect Word, given to us by the eyewitness Creator who never lies (Titus 1:2), to give us the true history of life and the universe.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

These Attacks Confirm God’s Word

The fact that people like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins and atheist groups in the USA like the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are so consumed with fighting against biblical Christianity, actually confirms the truth of God’s Word.

In Romans 1 we read that God has given man the ability to know that He exists, so that if anyone rejects the God of the Bible, they are without excuse: “What may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19–20).

God’s Word also makes it clear that the reason even atheists use words like right and wrong and good and bad is because God has given man a conscience—God’s law written on our hearts: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law . . . show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:14–15).

In Genesis 3:5 we read that the temptation given to Adam and Eve was that they could “be like God.” Because we succumbed to this temptation in Adam (in Adam we sinned), we want to be our own god! Our fallen nature doesn’t want to submit to the God who created us and owns us; we want to make our own rules! Romans 1 also explains that because of man’s rebellious heart, fallen unregenerate man will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Really then, when Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and others so aggressively oppose biblical Christianity, what they are doing is this. They are covering their ears and closing their eyes and saying, “I refuse to submit to the God who created me. I refuse to acknowledge that God is the creator. I refuse to accept that I’m a sinner in need of salvation. I want to write my own rules! Therefore I must oppose anything that pricks my conscience and aggressively suppress the truth to justify my rebellion.”

I was once speaking with an atheist when he said to me, “If there is a God, then why doesn’t He come and show Himself to us?” I replied, “He did, and they nailed Him to a cross.” And of course I went on to talk about Jesus as the God-man, His death and Resurrection, and the gift of salvation that He offers.

In 2 Peter 3:5, we are told that those who scoff about God as creator, the historical Flood, and coming judgment by fire are “willingly ignorant.” This means it is a deliberate action on their part not to believe, because they don’t want to believe. They close their eyes and cover their ears, refusing to believe the truth and actively suppressing it.

So why do these who so aggressively oppose Christianity care? They care because they are desperately trying to justify their rebellion against the truth. They don’t want to admit that they are sinners in need of salvation and thus need to submit to the God who created them and owns them.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Why Do Atheists Care?

Biblical Worldview

Atheists get very passionate when it comes to fighting biblical Christianity. If God doesn’t exist—and life has no ultimate meaning—why do they even care?

Why do atheists get so emotional and aggressive in opposing biblical Christianity? Why does it bother them? Why does it matter at all to them?

When Answers in Genesis announced plans to build the Creation Museum, a local atheist group began attacking the ministry of Answers in Genesis and campaigning against the museum. When the museum was opened, the atheists gathered outside the museum to protest the opening of this facility. But why did they do this?

At the time of this issue’s publication, atheists are aggressively opposing a new project involving the building of a life-size Noah’s Ark, the Ark Encounter. But what is it to atheists if Christians build such a facility to proclaim the Christian message? After all, thousands of secular museums across the USA and other countries around the world are already proclaiming an atheistic evolutionary message to the public. Government schools throughout the world by and large indoctrinate hundreds of millions of the coming generations in naturalism—really atheism.

So why do atheists get so upset with a minority that stands for biblical Christianity?

During my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on February 4, 2014, Bill was asked where matter came from. In his answer he said it was a great mystery, but he loved the “joy of discovery” as he pursued such questions. In my responses to Bill’s answers, I asked him why the joy of discovery mattered to him. I explained that from Bill’s perspective, life is the result of natural processes and there is no biblical God, so when he dies, he won’t even know he ever existed or knew anything. Then, when others who knew him die, they won’t know they ever knew him, either. Eventually, from his perspective of naturalism, the whole universe will die and no one will ever know they ever existed. So what is the purpose of this “joy of discovery”? Really, the naturalistic view of life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless!

Think about the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins. Why does he spend so much time writing and speaking against Someone (God) he doesn’t believe exists? Why is he so aggressive against biblical Christianity? In an ultimately purposeless and meaningless existence, why does it matter to him if people believe in the God of the Bible and the account of creation as outlined in Genesis? Why bother fighting against such people when, from his perspective, eventually no one will even know they ever existed?

They claim that they care about people and argue that believing in creation is harmful to society. But something deeper is going on. They aren’t fighting for the truth, but suppressing it.

Show post

David Wright #fundie answersingenesis.org

First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.

The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
We see plants today.
Therefore plants survived the Flood.

Show post

Dr. Terry Mortenson #fundie answersingenesis.org

Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years

There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days, roughly 4,000 years before Christ, and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah.

ABOUT 200 YEARS AGO SOME SCIENTISTS DEVELOPED NEW THEORIES OF EARTH HISTORY, WHICH PROPOSED THAT THE EARTH AND UNIVERSE ARE MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

But about 200 years ago some scientists developed new theories of earth history, which proposed that the earth and universe are millions of years old. Over the past 200 years Christian leaders have made various attempts to fit the millions of years into the Bible. These include the day-age view, gap theory, local flood view, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and so on.

A growing number of Christians (now called young-earth creationists), including many scientists, hold to the traditional view, believing it to be the only view that is truly faithful to Scripture and that fits the scientific evidence far better than the reigning old-earth evolutionary theory.

Many Christians say that the age of the earth is an unimportant and divisive side-issue that hinders the proclamation of the gospel. But is that really the case? AiG and many other creationist organizations think not.

In this short article (which can be purchased as a booklet to share with others), we want to introduce you to some of the reasons we think that Christians cannot accept the millions of years, without doing great damage to the church and her witness in the world. We hope that it will help you think more carefully about this subject and will motivate you to dig deeper into the excellent resources recommended at the end, which thoroughly defend the points made here.

1. The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago.

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yôm. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament (OT), it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t the context makes this clear.

Similarly, the context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. First, yôm is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yôm is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the OT, either together or separately and with or without yôm in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yôm is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, and so on, which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yôm is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 in relation to the heavenly bodies.

That these creation days happened only about 6,000 years ago is clear from the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (which give very detailed chronological information, unlike the clearly abbreviated genealogy in Matthew 1) and other chronological information in the Bible.

2. Exodus 20:11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1.
This verse gives the reason for God’s command to Israel to work six days and then take a Sabbath rest. Yôm is used in both parts of the commandment. If God meant that the Jews were to work six days because He created over six long periods of time, He could have said that using one of three indefinite Hebrew time words. He chose the only word that means a literal day and the Jews understood it literally (until the idea of million of years developed in the early 19th century). For this reason, the day-age view or framework hypothesis must be rejected. The gap theory or any other attempt to put millions of years before the six days are also false, because God says that in six days He made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So He made everything in those six literal days and nothing before the first day.

3. Noah’s Flood washes away millions of years.

The evidence in Genesis 6–9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark’s purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird to repopulate the earth after the flood. The Ark was totally unnecessary, if the Flood was local. People, animals, and birds could have migrated out of the flood zone before it occurred, or the zone could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, and so on. The Hebrew words translated “the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth’s surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Noah’s Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see today worldwide: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

4. Jesus was a young-earth creationist.

Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He states that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe was really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

5. Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s teaching on death and on the character of God.

Genesis 1 says six times that God called the creation “good,” and when He finished creation on Day Six He called everything “very good.” Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30, plants are not “living creatures,” as people and animals are, according Scripture). But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God’s curse they began to die physically. The serpent and Eve were changed physically and the ground itself was cursed (Genesis 3:14–19). The whole creation now groans in bondage to corruption, waiting for the final redemption of Christians (Rom. 8:19–25) when we will see the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21, Col. 1:20) to a state similar to the pre-Fall world, when there will be no more carnivore behavior (Isaiah 11:6–9) and no disease, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:3–5) because there will be no more Curse (Revelation 22:3). To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can’t prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but calls it all “very good.”

6. The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts.

It was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late 18th and early 19th century. These men used anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of Creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, and so on. to try to fit “deep time” into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments, nor did they defend their views by careful Bible study. The “deep time” idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations.

7. Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years.

Radiometric dating was not developed until the early 20th century, by which time the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited many examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the “RATE project” have done experimental, theoretical and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years dates to thousands of years, confirming the Bible.

Conclusion
These are just some of the reasons why we believe that the Bible is giving us the true history of the creation. God’s Word must be the final authority on all matters about which it speaks: not just the moral and spiritual matters, but also its teachings that bear on history, archeology, and science.

What is at stake here is the authority of Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death, and the very foundation of the gospel. If the early chapters of Genesis are not true literal history, then faith in the rest of the Bible is undermined, including its teaching about salvation and morality. I urge you to examine carefully the resources at the bottom of this article. The health of the church, the effectiveness of her mission to a lost world and the glory of God are at stake.

This article is available in an attractive booklet to share with Christian friends, your pastor, or anyone who is compromised or unsure about the age of the earth and who is not willing (or sufficiently motivated to take the time) to read a book or watch an hour-long DVD that would change their thinking. This booklet could be a stepping-stone to encourage them to study this matter further. Together, let’s keep calling Christians—and especially Christian leaders—back to the truth of Genesis.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator

Intolerance against Christians’ freedom to express their Christian worldview is increasing from a minority of secularists who are in positions of authority regarding education, research, and so on.

What happens when you briefly reference the Creator (without even specifically explaining who this Creator is) in a scientific paper for a secular publication? Well, watch out, for intolerant secularists will become incensed and get it censored.

Four scientists, three from China and one from Massachusetts, recently published an article entitled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living” in the journal PLOS ONE. In their article they mentioned that “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years” (emphasis mine). Near the end of the paper, the researchers added, “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” Now it’s even possible that the authors meant that nature (or evolution) was the Creator! Some people use such wording about nature/evolution.

When it became known that the word Creator was used, the outrage on the Internet and social media was swift and fierce. People bemoaned the “unacceptable,” “harmful disgrace,” “absolute joke,” and “sloppy job” of the editors and their journal for allowing this word to go through. Some secularists threatened to boycott the open-access journal, and some editors declared that they would resign if the article wasn’t retracted. The intolerance shown by the secularists over the use of the word Creator in the article was astonishing. The very idea that there could be an intelligence behind life was so unacceptable and was expressed with such anger that it only exposed how passionate they are in defending their secularist religion of humanism and naturalism.

The lead author of the paper, after he was contacted about the firestorm it was creating, reportedly said, “We are not native speakers of English, and entirely lost the connotations of some words such as ‘Creator.’ I am so sorry for that.” After discussion and thought, the journal decided to retract the article. We are not told what the authors were intending to communicate by their word choice of “Creator.”

It’s ironic that creationists are frequently accused of not being “real” scientists because they ”don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals” (of course by this common accusation they mean secular peer-reviewed journals), but this recent episode is a perfect example of why this often doesn’t happen! In their paper, these scientists made very brief mentions of a “Creator’s” design—in the same sentence mentioning evolution and millions of years—yet there was a very vocal demand that if this paper were not retracted, a boycott might be called. So it doesn’t matter how sound and well-researched your observational science is or how technical the paper might be, if it even dares to mention a word like Creator, it will be censored. There is such a massive intolerance in the scientific community today against anything that could possibly hint at life not arising by natural processes!

This is one reason that we need our Answers Research Journal, one of several technical, peer-reviewed journals where creationists can submit their articles to be possibly published. Many creationists are not allowed to publish in secular journals, regardless of the quality or soundness of their research and the author’s credentials, simply because what they write isn’t based on the religion of naturalism! It would immediately be declared “wrong”—regardless of the quality of the research—simply because it may be influenced by the Christian worldview instead of evolutionary naturalism.

Now this isn’t to say that creationists never publish in secular, peer-reviewed journals. Many of the scientists here at Answers in Genesis, such as Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Andrew Snelling, and Dr. Georgia Purdom, have all been published in secular journals because they do solid observational science. But in their articles they aren’t permitted to mention the Creator or that their starting point is God’s Word because their work would automatically be thrown out—regardless of the high quality observational science they present.

THE INTENSE PREJUDICE AND INTOLERANCE CONTINUALLY ON DISPLAY BY SECULARISTS IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE.
The intense prejudice and intolerance continually on display by secularists is almost unbelievable. And sadly it’s only increasing. They become up in arms about anything that mentions a creator and will immediately throw it out. And we see this attitude in our personal lives and the culture as a whole. Anyone who dares to think biblically about origins, the nature of marriage, or the sanctity of life is often treated with intolerance, anger, and prejudice, and faces ad hominin attacks—just for starting with God’s Word! And sadly, as our culture moves farther and farther from a biblical worldview, we can only expect this intolerance to continue.

We also saw a similar intolerance regarding the debate I had with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” in 2014. Many secularists openly admitted that they were against the debate because they didn’t want creationists to be able to present our teachings to the public. It’s the same reason atheist groups constantly attack the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter: they can’t tolerate Christians having such a public presence to present their message in a world where so many people have been brainwashed by the religion of naturalism. Secularists don’t want their monopoly on education and research being broken, and thus they resort to censorship.

Really, this outrage directed against PLOS ONE for printing this paper shows how utterly intolerant secularists are to anything even remotely Christian. They don’t want people to even hear any possibility of something that might support creation. They immediately have to be censors. Now, something is wrong with your worldview if you have to censor other views and not even let people hear the alternatives! Whatever happened to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Secularists ultimately don’t want freedom of religion; they want freedom from Christianity.

As I wrote earlier, evolution is a religion. It’s a religion of naturalism and atheism (both of which are totally unprovable from an observational scientific standpoint, yet are held to ardently within much of academia by blind faith). According to secular, evolutionary thinking, if anything even hints at a creator, it must be thrown out because obviously there’s something wrong with it. This attitude boils down to what their starting point is—they start with the assumption that there is no creator and that everything happened by naturalistic processes, so it doesn’t matter what the quality of the research is; if it in any way supports a Creator God (and it doesn’t even seem to matter which creator; it doesn’t even have to be the God of the Bible), they throw it out. It’s not surprising then that public school science textbooks often define science as only having to do with natural processes—no supernatural is allowed. In other words, the religion of naturalism (which is in essence atheism) is being imposed on generations of students in government-run schools.

If secularists were to be honest, they would fully acknowledge that from their perspective, when they die, that’s it—they’re dead. Then why do they even fight so vehemently against God? Why do they care if someone mentions a creator in a research paper? What is it that irks them so much about this? Well, the bottom line is that they know that if there is a God who created them, and if He is the God of the Bible, then He owns them, He sets the rules, and they are accountable to Him. It means, for example, that marriage is one man for one woman, that abortion is murder, and so on.

Because the human heart does not want to submit to Christ, secularists actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Romans 1 makes it clear that God is clearly seen through what He has made (Romans 1:20). But instead of submitting to Him, people reject that truth and do everything they can to ignore His witness in nature and through His Word. Ultimately, it comes down to a heart issue!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23)

Editor’s note: This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

John UpChurch #fundie answersingenesis.org

(From an article about the similarities between creationists and "evolutionists". The majority of the article is written in a nice, tolerant tone, talking about how both groups are not as different as you'd expect. Then all that tolerance is blown out in the summary of the article)

Putting It All Together
The chasm between evolutionists and creationists isn’t what many people think it is. We both study the universe and agree on the basic nature of the data coming in. We can shake hands about the fundamental laws of how things work. We both love science.

We’re just starting from two very different places as we interpret its larger historical significance. That goes beyond our ability to observe facts and perform repeatable experiments. It depends on our untestable assumptions about the past, which nobody was present to observe.

Here’s the reason for concern. Evolutionists rely on a human-centered approach. They have no higher authority, no higher source of information, than the gray matter in their heads. They are unwilling to check their work against an answer key because they don’t believe there is one.

WE NEED TO DEPEND ON THE ONE ETERNAL ABSOLUTE SOURCE OF TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING IN THE UNIVERSE—OUR CREATOR.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t trust my fallible brain to remember where I left my bottle of water, let alone on matters of how we came to be. I recognize my limitations, and I believe that we are designed to recognize our limits and need to depend on the one eternal absolute source of truth and understanding in the universe—our Creator. In fact, I would humbly submit to you that a human-centered approach leaves a lot to be desired.

There is something much better. You see, God loved us enough to tell us exactly what He did and when He did it, at least in the most important matters of our origin, purpose, and destiny. He wanted us to know Him and to know that He would one day enter into His creation to save us from our sin (Philippians 2). If He’s an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-everything God who wants us to know Him, wouldn’t we be much better off trusting His revelation of history and the universe and everything?

Yeah, that’s why I’ll take His explanation every time.

Show post

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

[A girl sends AiG a mail asking whether or not she should be tolerant of her friend converting to Hinduism, as all religions are similar. This is a small piece AiG's answer.]

A final note with regards to Hinduism, God’s Word reveals that He is the only God and that there are no other “gods” besides Him (Exodus 20:2–6). There are many other passages that reveal that, in light of the Bible, Hinduism is a false religion. So, there is no reason—in the eyes of God—to raise up Hinduism or any other religion to be equal to God and His Word or to lower His Word so that fallible sinful human beings sit in judgment over Him.

In Hinduism, there is a belief in “Moksha” or “Mukti,” which is supposed to be the liberation of the soul from the endless cycles of Karma, or the binding life-cycles (also called “samsara”). They often strive to get closer to liberation via several means (primarily devotion to a “god,” good works, or understanding). But the good news of Jesus Christ is that a completed work of salvation has come to mankind once for all.

Romans 6:9–10
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Those who have been taught Hinduism may be receptive to repentance and the gospel. For such would be ultimate completion to return to the true God. Please be praying that many in Hinduism and other false religions would consider the true and living God and be saved through Jesus Christ. Also, keep in mind that Hindus are not the enemy, but the false philosophy that has deceived our relatives (Ephesians 6:12).

With kindness for the gospel,
Bodie

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

“Equal Rights” for All But Christians"

The Tri-State Freethinkers atheist group in our area of Northern Kentucky-Greater Cincinnati, who say they are “advocates for equal rights,” continue to make it very obvious they don’t want equal rights for Christians.1

Both Christian and secular media outlets have reported on these atheists’ plans that the Tri-State Freethinkers describe this way:

"We have launched an IndieGoGo campaign to fund our billboard that will counter the Ark Encounter grand opening in July. The replica of Noah's Ark is the newest project by Answers in Genesis to promote creationism. While they have a legal right to celebrate their mythology, we find it immoral and highly inappropriate as family entertainment."

Now in the first place, an atheist group has no basis for accusing anyone of being “immoral.” They have no basis for absolute standards—only subjective fallible opinion!

The billboards they plan on putting up in our area will look like this:

image

Note the wording, “Genocide and Incest Park.” Again, how can atheists, who have no basis for any absolute standards accuse anyone with such a moral judgment, such as genocide and incest?

Atheists believe that all life arose by natural processes and that man is just an animal related to all living things. Because they believe humans evolved from some ape-like ancestors, evolving humans, just like animals, would have mated with whomever they wanted, whenever, with no restrictions except whatever they could accomplish for their own desires. And really, from a truly consistent atheistic perspective, that belief would not change for modern humans.

Christians, however, believe that all humans—back to Adam and Eve—are related but only to each other. Also, biblical Christians build relationships according to what our Creator God, the only absolute authority, has determined. Thus marriage, which was invented by God as recorded in Genesis, is for one man for one woman. (Genesis 2:18–25; Matthew 19:4).

Now I encourage you to watch the promotional fund raising video produced by the Tri-State Freethinkers and their president, Jim Helton, who is also the regional director for the American Atheists:

(Video on site)

First, it should be very obvious that ultimately they are not against the Ark project but Christianity and the God of the Bible. They are just using the Ark project as a way of shaking their fist at God. Note how the president of this group throws the Bible, treating it as a contemptible object. I wonder if he would ever do that so publically with the Koran?

Secondly, note his reference to what he calls the Ark Encounter’s “discriminatory hiring practices” and “tax incentives.” He forgot to mention that a federal judge recently ruled that Christian organizations do have equal rights with other organizations under the First Amendment and its free exercise clause. The judge ruled that Answers in Genesis could not be discriminated against to receive Kentucky’s facially neutral tourism tax incentive program.

By the way, Helton does make a point at the end of the video of reminding people that donations to the Tri-State Free Thinkers are tax deductible, and they do state on their website that they are a 501(c)(3) tax deductible, non-profit organization. In other words, they receive benefits from the government by the very nature of their non-profit legal basis!

Helton also failed to mention that the federal judge also ruled that as a religious organization, the Ark Encounter can use religious preference in hiring as legally allowed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m also sure the American Atheist organization (also non-profit and tax-deductible), which he represents, would discriminate against employing a Bible-believing creationist.

In 2007, an atheist group in Kentucky organized a protest outside the gates of the Creation Museum when it was opened. Their protest only brought more publicity to the Creation Museum and an increasing recognition of these atheists’ intolerance to anything Christian and their rejection of equal rights for Christian groups. I’m sure their latest proposed protest of the opening of the Ark Encounter will likewise bring more attention to this world-class, themed attraction.

THIS GROUP HIGHLIGHTS THE OPEN HOSTILITY AND GROWING AGGRESSIVENESS OF ATHEISTS IN ATTACKING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO REVEALED HIMSELF THROUGH ITS HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS.

Really what these atheists are doing is summed up by one verse of Scripture where we read about those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

By exhibiting their intolerance of the Ark Encounter this time, this group highlights the open hostility and growing aggressiveness of atheists in attacking the Bible and the God who revealed Himself through its historical accounts. This particularly highlights the intolerance for the Bible, which itself was the moral framework and foundation of Western political philosophy of liberty and equality.

In 2 Peter 3, the Bible speaks of such scoffers who deliberately reject Creation and the Flood. What we experience from these modern scoffers, must be just a fraction of the scoffing Noah must have endured. All but his own family had rebelled against a Holy God who had every right to mete out righteous judgment because:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

The life-size Ark will be the largest timber-frame structure in the world—an engineering and architectural marvel. The scores of exhibit bays inside will be filled with world-class exhibits that I believe will receive rave reviews. This family-friendly facility will open July 7, 2016. For more information on this themed attraction and to purchase tickets, go to ArkEncounter.com.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Show post

Roger Patterson #fundie answersingenesis.org

[From an AiG article on the symbols of Easter]

Egg-laying Bunnies
The hare has been celebrated as a symbol of fertility in many cultures throughout recorded history. Throughout Western celebrations, the hare or rabbit has been attached to the Resurrection of the Savior of the world. Exactly how this connection has come to be varies within cultures, but all are from outside the Bible.

A problematic aspect of the hare in our modern culture comes from the promise of treats to boys and girls who have been good. Not too unlike Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny magically and mysteriously appears in the middle of the night to hide a basket filled with candy for the child. Sadly, rather than waking to a morning focused on celebrating Christ’s victory over death and our assurance of faith in Him (1 Corinthians 15:13–17), the focus is on selfishly seeking a hidden basket of sweets. I ask you to question whether this is a wise practice for your family and yet to reserve judging those who choose to participate in such activities (Romans 14). Every Christian would do well to consider whether this type of activity leads to exalting Christ as Lord and Savior and to make that goal the measure of their decision whether to participate in egg hunts and the like.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Secularists Get Overly Emotional Over Their Religion!

Yesterday I tweeted this:

New Cosmos TV series shown in public schools uses tax dollars to basically tell students to worship the stars, imposing atheism on students

And it’s true. Neil deGrasse Tyson does basically tell students to worship the sun/the stars. For instance he says in episode 8:

Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children. The silicon in the rocks, the oxygen in the air, the carbon in our DNA, the iron in our skyscrapers, the silver in our jewelry—were all made in stars, billions of years ago. Our planet, our society, and we ourselves are stardust.

Well, as a result of my tweet, secular bloggers and others went rather ballistic—for instance, these sorts of headlines appeared: “Ken Ham is a Liar,” “Creationist Ken Ham Fears New Cosmos Series Will Create Pandemic of Reason and Critical Thinking,” “Ken Ham Disparages Schools Showing Cosmos in Class for ‘Imposing Atheism on Students.’”

Secularists for too long have been allowed to impose their anti-God religion of evolution/millions of years on generations of kids—and we are seeing the consequences in an increasingly secularized culture and large numbers of young people drifting from the church.

I followed up my tweet about the Cosmos series with:

We need to call out programs like Cosmos for what they really are- indoctrinating people in an anti-God religion to underminine Christianity

Secularists don’t like being exposed for who they really are and what they’re really doing - imposing an anti-God religion on the culture

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Arkophobia

We’ve all heard of the word arachnophobia, a fear of spiders and other arachnids such as scorpions. Well, there is a new phobia showing up on countless blogs, on Twitter, and in news sources. And it has a similar-sounding name: Arkophobia. It’s a fear of the life-size Ark we are building in Williamstown, Kentucky, that opens July 7.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a phobia as “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

Well, the Arkophobia we see all around us is certainly “illogical.” But it’s actually not “inexplicable.” Let me explain.

Arkophobia hit an all-time high the week of January 25. That’s when a federal judge issued a major ruling that gave a huge win to Answers in Genesis in our religious freedom lawsuit against the State of Kentucky and the actions of the previous governor, Steve Beshear.

The judge ruled that Kentucky could not deny the Ark project participation in the state’s tourism tax incentive program. Such a denial would be discriminatory based on the US Constitution and its First Amendment. The judge also ruled in accord with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of that act, confirming that, as a religious organization, AiG can use religious preferences in Ark hiring.

image

Creation Wise: Ark Danger

Well, that federal decision was too much for the secularist/atheist bloggers. That’s when Arkophobia was at its height. Many secularists were already livid that a Christian organization is building such a massive tourist facility that will have a huge impact in the culture as it proclaims a Christian message! They just can’t stand it! Their hatred against Christianity was so clear after the ruling.

In bemoaning the judge’s decision, one atheist blogger mocked:

"In case you don’t know, Ken Ham is building a big boat in Kentucky and planning to tell people it’s a replica of Noah’s Ark. This, he believes, will make people want to become Christians and stop being gay. Ham’s God really likes spending millions of dollars on vanity woodwork projects but really hates people who love other people of the same gender.

Ham’s God is apparently ambivalent about giving some of those millions of dollars to those who most need it."

These hateful statements really help to reveal Arkophobia. What is the real reason for such vehement opposition to a project that will be so beneficial to the state as it brings hundreds of millions of tourist dollars into Kentucky for hotels, restaurants, and much more, and creates thousands of jobs? It’s because of the message of the Ark.

WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR SUCH VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO THE ARK?
The opposition to the tax incentives, which are offered to any tourism project that will have a positive economic impact in Kentucky and create jobs (called a “neutral purpose”), is illogical. Furthermore, such censorship violates the US Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom of religion and its free exercise. The opposition we have been encountering is due to a heart issue.

Romans 3:23 teaches us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And Romans 3:10–18 states:

There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Victory in the Courts
In a major ruling, the federal judge confirmed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows AiG to use a religious preference in hiring.

The bottom line with the secularist opposition? Arkophobia is so widespread because “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Secularists are in rebellion against their Creator. The fact that He has the right to tell them, through His Word, what is right (e.g., marriage is one man for one woman) and what is wrong (e.g., abortion is murder) angers them.

Secularists oppose the Ark because they are afraid of the Ark’s goal: to proclaim the everlasting gospel. Revelation 14:6–7 declares:

Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Find out more about the Ark Encounter outreach at ArkEncounter.com.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I recently saw an interesting news item about a baby gorilla that was delivered via emergency C-section at the Bristol Zoo in England. What made this noteworthy to me was how the zoo curator and members of the veterinary team referred to the unborn gorilla. They said, “[The mother gorilla] was becoming quite poorly and we needed to act fast in order to give the best possible treatment to mother and baby, and to avoid the possibility of losing the baby. . . . We also thought that the baby in her uterus was showing signs of being very unwell and in need of delivery.”

DNA Similarities
Isn’t it interesting how this unborn gorilla is being referred to as a “baby” before it was born, not a “fetus” even though that’s technically the term for an unborn mammal? The zookeepers and veterinarians treated this unborn gorilla as if it had value even before it was born. Sadly, this dignity is withheld from millions of unborn human babies. Instead of being seen as having inherent value and dignity just for being human, babies are seen as nothing more than an extension of a woman’s body, a clump of tissue, or some other dehumanizing term. So babies are legally murdered at the hand of an abortion doctor despite their humanness. This is tragic!! (...)

(...) Sadly, for many people today, the life of an animal seems to have more value than a human life. But humans have a special kind of inherent value that animals can never have because we alone are made in the very image of God (Genesis 1:27). Animals, though created and cared for by God as well, will never have the value of humans because they simply aren’t made in God’s image. As Christians, we need to affirm the value of every human life—born or unborn. That value is so great that God’s Son stepped into history to pay the penalty for our sin so we could be redeemed! “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Show post

Simon Turpin #fundie answersingenesis.org

Three Reasons Jesus Refutes Theistic Evolution

Sadly, much of the church in the United Kingdom has succumbed to the teaching of evolution and millions of years. This has only been to the detriment of the church. There are many biblical reasons to reject theistic evolution, but in considering the person of Jesus, there are three specific arguments that refute this belief.

1. His Goodness
At the end of the six days of creation, God declares his creation to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The goodness of God’s completed creation is a reflection of His nature (1 Chronicles 16:34; Psalm 34:8, 106:1) since it is He alone who is good (Luke 18:19).

In the New Testament we read that the Creator and Savior of the world became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1–3, 14). In Acts 10:38, Peter said that Jesus, our Creator, “went about doing good.” Some of the good things Jesus did included feeding the hungry (Mark 6:33–44), healing diseases (Matthew 8–9), giving sight to the blind (John 9:1–8), stopping natural disasters (Mark 4:39), and raising the dead (John 11:43–44). The healing ministry of Jesus was a confrontation of evil, suffering, and death. However for those Christians who believe God used evolution, the problem here is that evil, suffering, and death are integral parts of evolution. Why then would Jesus have done all those things if, as the Creator, He knew them to be part of the “very good” creation which He created?

2. His Miracles
The Bible tells us that Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine at the wedding in Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–11). While this was the first of His earthly miracles, His first actual miracle was the creation of the world (John 1:1–3). Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus created the world by His spoken word (Psalm 33:6; John 1:1–3; Hebrews 11:3) and reveals how that creation took place: “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). The New Testament bears witness to this through the instantaneous nature of His miracles in the gospels (e.g., Matthew 8:5–13; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42–43). So when Jesus, the Word, spoke the divine command, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), we have very good reasons to conclude that it did not take millions of years for it to come into existence.

Theistic evolutionists inconsistently reject the supernatural creation of the world whilst accepting the reality of the virgin birth, the miracles, and the Resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with the truth claims of the secular scientific majority. This inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

3. His Death
Christians need to consider what Jesus’ death achieved if Darwinian evolution is true and physical death and suffering were already present in an evolving world. Those who believe that God created by evolutionary processes believe in a world where there were death, destruction, and catastrophe before Adam’s disobedience. This is faith in a Creator, Christ, who “creates” by using evolutionary processes, which is essentially faith in a “god” who said He created all things “very good” when He really used eons of death and struggle. If this is the case, then how can He be trusted to make a new and good creation (Revelation 21:1) since His definition of “good” may well mean an eternity of death and struggle?

Scripture speaks about a future restoration of Creation from the Curse brought on it through Adam’s rebellion (Romans 8:19–25). This restoration and reconciliation of all things comes about because of Jesus’ work on the Cross (Colossians 1:15–20). Theistic evolutionists must be able to explain what creation will be restored to. Will it be restored to a state of death and suffering?

By replacing or synthesising Genesis 1–3 with the philosophy of evolution and millions of years, many in the church have failed to understand how the person and nature of their Creator, the Lord Jesus, refute their own teaching.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

[ "Noah wouldn’t have had the adequate tools" [to build his ark]]

Besides the fact that we don’t know what tools Noah had, we point out that many people wittingly or unwittingly have an evolutionary view (or evolutionary-influenced view) of history. Many think Noah must have been some primitive person maybe using primitive stone tools. When God made man, man was obviously highly intelligent. Genesis 4:21 tell us that within a few generations people were making musical instruments. By the time of Noah, and with people living for hundreds of years before the Flood, who knows what sort of knowledge was accumulated and the kind of sophisticated technology that was developed? Noah may have had tools and other impressive technology that we would be jealous of! And remember, we don’t know how ancient people built many of the stone structures in South America or even the remarkably constructed Egyptian pyramids. The ancients obviously had a technology we just aren’t aware of, as it seems no record was kept or the records were destroyed. In this area of ancient technologies, we need to think in terms of a Christian worldview based on the history in the Bible.

[Emphasis added]

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is BioLogos Promoting Heresy?

BioLogos is an organization that is using millions of dollars (including considerable funding by the Templeton Foundation) to try to convince Christian leaders, Christians, and churches to adopt the ideas of evolution and billions of years into the Bible. On their website we read:

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
One of their core commitments states:

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

But are they just trying to impose evolutionary ideas onto God’s Word? No! It’s much more than that—they are trying to impose what I believe is really a heretical view of God’s character and the gospel. Can I justify this? Well, you judge for yourself.

On February 15, 2016, BioLogos posted a video by Rev. Leonard J. Vander Zee, who has an MDiv from Calvin Theological Seminary, and is a former pastor of South Bend (Indiana) Christian Reformed Church.

The president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, is former professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where BioLogos is currently located. She stated this about Reverand Vander Zee’s presentation.

"He began to preach an amazing visual sermon, spinning a tale of wonder and beauty about “the true story of the whole world” (as N. T. Wright calls the Bible). Len brought the key events from billions of years of natural history right alongside the biblical narrative, with scientific images and beautiful artwork. My jaw dropped as he described the scientific wonders of the Big Bang as a reflection of the joy of the Trinity—God the Father, Son, and Spirit. He told the story of the evolution of plants and animals as an expression of God’s creativity, something we celebrate at BioLogos. He told of the development of the first humans and of how our sin tore us away from God’s intended path. He brought us on a journey through God’s plan for salvation in Jesus Christ and finally to the end of all things in God’s restored creation."

Now the entire almost 12-minute video is on the BioLogos website and on YouTube. It’s nothing more than taking the secular/atheistic evolutionary views and attributing every aspect of evolution and billions of years to God!

I encourage you to watch the entire video later, but first watch these segments I have selected:

(Video clips on website)

So, Reverend Vander Zee attributes millions of years of evolutionary processes (that involve death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed) to God—which itself is an attack on the character of our Holy God. But obviously he has no place for a literal Adam and Eve and literal Fall. He implies that there are more than two humans that evolved and that the whole universe and all life are in this continuous evolutionary progression.

Now watch this segment where he mentions sin—seemingly as something that is part of this evolutionary progression that spreads through human kind—not original sin by one man as the Bible clearly teaches (Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22)

Now watch how he describes salvation.

Reverend Vander Zee seems to be saying that salvation means that we evolve into some glorified state. Here are his words in print:

"I want you to notice something important here that often gets lost in telling the Christian story. Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity or the spoiled created order. Salvation is about becoming human, and as restored human beings in the image of God, bringing the created order to its full glory. Here is how Paul puts it in Romans 8, “The whole creation stands on tiptoe, waiting for the revealing of the children of God . . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:18–20, paraphrase). Jesus Christ is the true and human image of the invisible God. By faith in Christ, through his shed blood and victorious resurrection, we are being restored by the Spirit to our true human identity as image-bearers of God. As Paul puts it, “We . . . are being transformed into his image with ever increasing glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18)."

What could this possibly mean? He says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity” (a statement consistent with theistic evolutionists’ denial of Adam and Eve’s literal Fall). Yet we’re “restored” as “human beings in the image of God,” and we’re “restored” as humans “to our true human identity as image-bearers of God.” The definition of restore is “reestablish,” “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition.”3 Which is it? If humanity wasn’t broken in the beginning, why restore it?

If, instead, Reverend Vander Zee actually meant “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition” when he used the term “restore,” then what was the original condition? The original state (according to his evolutionary view) was deplorable—an existence filled with death and suffering and disease and every other evolutionary process that gave rise to humans! Since salvation normally denotes our eternal hope, are we as Christians to comfort ourselves in an eternity of death and suffering and disease and every other nasty evolutionary process?

Furthermore, Reverend Vander Zee says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind . . . the spoiled created order.” If so, then perhaps the current world in which we live—the one filled with death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed—will remain eternally. Is this picture any prettier or something to look forward to?

Whichever way you try to understand it, in the context of Reverend Vander Zee’s evolutionary narrative, his statement on salvation is confused and seriously contrary to Scripture.

Theistic evolutionists can’t have it both ways. If you take away from the Christian worldview of the literal Fall and its cosmic effects, what happens to the Bible’s teaching about the new heavens and new earth? Is there any room for heaven in the theistic evolutionary worldview? Once you whittle away the beginning and the end of the story from the Christian gospel, is there much left to gut?

Not surprisingly, the BioLogos organization has a statement of faith that lacks any clear position on the Christian’s future hope. They claim to “believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God,” but with respect to whether Jesus will return bodily, whether hell exists, and whether heaven is a place free of death and suffering, BioLogos has no explicit statement.

Why not? It probably goes back to their first—and even bigger—omission in their statement of faith: “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God.” Do you see what’s missing? They don’t explicitly endorse the inerrancy of Scripture! So they’re free to distort the beginning and the end of the Christian history of redemption. When BioLogos finishes their campaign, what will be left of Christianity?

Personally, I call it heresy because the definition of heresy is

"opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system."

Reverend Vander Zee’s description of salvation is a logical consequence of the acceptance of man’s fallible atheistic evolutionary beliefs combined with God’s infallible Word. BioLogos wants to call this “evolutionary creation”—but in reality it’s “theistic evolution,” which is only one step away from atheistic evolution. And the one step away is, in reality, one generation away, as we see increasing numbers of the millennial generation walking away from the church and rejecting the clear teachings of God’s Word. Compromised teaching like this from BioLogos is a major cause of this falling away, as revealed in the research we’ve had conducted and detailed in Already Gone and Ready to Return.

The thrust of BioLogos is not in accord with the biblical doctrines of Christianity; thus it is in reality from the spirit of anti-Christ. Church, be warned!

Show post

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Extrasolar “Super-Earth” Atmosphere Contradicts Evolutionary Assumptions

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

For the past two decades, astronomers have conducted concentrated searches for extrasolar planets, planets orbiting other stars. So far, astronomers have found about 2,000 extrasolar planets. The obvious motivation for these searches is to establish that planets similar to the earth are common. If planets similar to the earth are common, the reasoning then is that perhaps life is common in the universe. Up to now, scientist have not found any earth-like planets.

Many of the first extrasolar planets discovered were very massive, more massive than Jupiter, the most massive planet in our solar system. Astronomers call these large planets super-Jupiters. More recently, astronomers have found much smaller planets (this effort has been helped by the Kepler mission). Many extrasolar planets discovered now are more massive than the earth, but less massive than the larger planets in our solar system. Astronomers call these extrasolar planets super-earths. A news story on February 16, 2016, reported the first detection of an atmosphere around a super-earth extrasolar planet, 55 Cancri e. We know of four other planets orbiting the same star, 55 Cancri A, so the entire system forms a sort of solar system. Astrobiologists are particularly excited about this system, because the star 55 Cancri A is similar to the sun. Stars similar to the sun are considered to be the best candidates of hosting planets where life may exist.

For the past two decades, astronomers have conducted concentrated searches for extrasolar planets, planets orbiting other stars. So far, astronomers have found about 2,000 extrasolar planets. The obvious motivation for these searches is to establish that planets similar to the earth are common. If planets similar to the earth are common, the reasoning then is that perhaps life is common in the universe. Up to now, scientist have not found any earth-like planets.

Many of the first extrasolar planets discovered were very massive, more massive than Jupiter, the most massive planet in our solar system. Astronomers call these large planets super-Jupiters. More recently, astronomers have found much smaller planets (this effort has been helped by the Kepler mission). Many extrasolar planets discovered now are more massive than the earth, but less massive than the larger planets in our solar system. Astronomers call these extrasolar planets super-earths. A news story on February 16, 2016, reported the first detection of an atmosphere around a super-earth extrasolar planet, 55 Cancri e. We know of four other planets orbiting the same star, 55 Cancri A, so the entire system forms a sort of solar system. Astrobiologists are particularly excited about this system, because the star 55 Cancri A is similar to the sun. Stars similar to the sun are considered to be the best candidates of hosting planets where life may exist.

The mass of 55 Cancri e is approximately 8.6 times the earth’s mass, while its diameter is about twice that of the earth. This extrasolar planet is rare in that we know both its mass and its size (usually we know just one of those two). Its mass and size suggest that the density of 55 Cancri e is about the same as the earth’s density. Orbiting a star similar to our sun, with a size similar to the earth, and density and hence composition similar to the earth, things look promising for life on 55 Cancri e. However, there is just one large problem—55 Cancri e orbits very close to its star, so close that it takes less than 18 hours to orbit, as compared to the earth’s 365-day orbital period. The surface temperature of 55 Cancri e is estimated to be more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt most metals.

The research team that published the study to appear in the Astrophysical Journal used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe the spectrum of the star 55 Cancri A as the planet 55 Cancri e transited, or passed in front of, the star, as it does each orbit. The team identified in the spectrum a feature that appears to be due to hydrogen cyanide, HCN. They found evidence that a few other simple organic molecules might be present, but they did not detect water. They also were able to constrain the mean molecular weight of the planet’s atmosphere to about four atomic mass units. The only gases capable of accounting for such a low mean molecular weight are hydrogen and helium. The massive planets in the solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, have atmospheres dominated by hydrogen and helium, but the atmospheres of the smaller planets do not. Evolutionists think that planets massive enough to have atmospheres began with atmospheres primarily of hydrogen and helium. More massive planets with strong gravity could retain these “primitive” atmospheres, but less massive planets, such as the earth, could not. That is, the less massive planets ought to lose their primordial atmospheres and replace them with evolved atmospheres.

So why does 55 Cancri e still have a “primitive” atmosphere? Given its relatively small mass, its modest surface gravity ought not to hold on to the hydrogen and helium very long. Its extremely high temperature because of its close proximity to the star that it orbits ought to speed the rate of loss of the primordial atmosphere 55 Cancri e. The most obvious way out of this dilemma would be to suggest that 55 Cancri e is a very young planet. However, based upon rotation and magnetic activity studies, astronomers have estimated the star’s age to be at least three billion years older than the sun. Planets supposedly form along with the stars they orbit, so 55 Cancri e ought to be billions of years old, in the estimation of evolutionists. But what if 55 Cancri e is, say, only a few thousand years old? Then there may not have been enough time for 55 Cancri e to have lost much of the atmosphere that it was created with.

As the authors note in their conclusion, further observations may overturn their results. We’ll see. But until that happens, this result clearly contradicts the evolutionary assumption and billions of years. As such, the hydrogen and helium atmosphere around 55 Cancri e may be evidence that the creation is young, just as indicated in Scripture.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

There is Hope for Atheists!

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

WE DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH USING APOLOGETICS AGAINST THE SECULAR ATTACKS OF OUR DAY.
At Answers in Genesis, through our resources, conferences, and other outreaches, we do our best to defend the Christian faith using apologetics against the secular attacks of our day. But in doing so, we need to also point people to the truth of God’s Word and challenge them concerning the saving gospel. We use apologetics to answer questions and direct people to God’s Word and its message of salvation.

There’s no greater thrill in this ministry than to hear how God has used what has been taught by AiG to touch someone’s life—for eternity. Last week, I was introduced to one of our new volunteers, Donna, who is helping sew some of the costumes for the figures that will be placed inside our full-size Ark. She had responded to my Facebook post asking for seamstresses.

I discovered that she became a Christian in 1993 after attending one of my seminars (called “Back to Genesis” with the Institute for Creation Research ministry) at Cedarville University in Ohio. The Bible-upholding seminar was such an eye-opener to her about the reliability of the Bible that she became a Christian.

We asked if she would share her testimony.

"Ken:

The Lord opened up this atheistic evolutionist’s eyes decades ago, through exposure to Ken’s ministry.

I was a die-hard evolutionist, completely convinced that the fossil finds in Olduvai Gorge supported the “evidence” that we evolved from less-complicated, early hominid creatures, like the so-called “Lucy".

To keep a long story short: I attended a Creation Seminar at Cedarville College [now Cedarville University], sat in rapt attention as Ken Ham told me “the rest of the story,” and I realized that all of the fossil finds I believed supported evolution were, in all cases, misinterpreted. I was blown away! So, learning the truth about evolution preceded my realizing that God was real (after all!) and that the Bible was His Word. I became a creationist before I became a believer in Christ.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic. My parents took all seven of us to church every Sunday. And for all that religiosity, we never spoke of Jesus at home.

After twelve years of Catholic schools, and being taught that Noah's Ark, for example, was just an allegorical way to relay the story that “if you come on board with belief in God, he'll keep you through the storm,” that there probably was no actual Noah's Ark, and probably no actual Adam and Eve, it was easy to throw out the Bible as any believable “Word of God.”

I became a non-Christian. I used to say, “How can I believe a book that's been copied over and over and over, translated in so many different versions, when it probably doesn't even look like the original, like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy?” It was easy to walk away from what little faith I'd been taught.

But then being exposed to creation science ministries, I had to look honestly at what I'd come to believe about God. I can't name a specific date that I came to saving knowledge of what Christ had done for me—it was more of a season. I was that thick headed. It took a while for it all to unfold.

Today, I am feasting on apologetics, Christian music, and the inerrant Word of God. I never thought the Bible could make so much sense. Christ has loved and protected me through my years of doubt, even though I never deserved it. I know where I came from, and I know exactly where I’m going. I am free of the fears and superstitions of religion, because I have a deep, personal relationship with the most awesome Creator of the Universe!

By the way, my twin daughters are both graduates of Cedarville, and one is a pastor's wife!

I am so honored to be doing any little thing to make the presentation at the Ark Encounter come alive, and look forward to many more days helping with the sewing effort."


Thank you, Donna. What a wonderful account!
We were able to find some information on the 1993 seminar that she attended at Cedarville University; Cedarville is a university that has a close affiliation with AiG today. See a photo of me (with dark hair) on page 4 of Torch, summer 1993.

In explaining how we conduct apologetics evangelism at AiG, I like to use the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). When Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus, He told people to roll the stone away. Now, Jesus could have moved the stone with one command—but what people could do for themselves, He asked them to do. Then what people couldn’t do, He did with a command—His Word. He raised Lazarus from the dead.

At AiG, we know that non-Christians are really walking dead people “who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Only God’s Word can raise the dead. So when we are witnessing to “dead” people, we do the best we can to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) to defend the faith, and in so doing, point them to the Word of God that saves! God is the One who opens people’s hearts (including atheists) and “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Yes, God’s Word reaches even the most hardened heart. There is hope for every atheist, for the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

If the Lord has used AiG, including our Creation Museum, in your life to bring you to salvation, would you please let me know? Thank you.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Neanderthals—Descendants of Adam

A popular news item was trending this week on Facebook involving Neanderthals. Headlines declared things like “Neanderthals and humans interbred ‘100,000 years ago.’” Really, the idea that Neanderthals and humans share DNA from “interbreeding” isn’t new—it’s been known and well documented for years. What’s different about this news item is the timeline. The 100,000-year date, according to evolutionists, pushes the date back another 40,000 years.

Now, as we’ve said many times before, Neanderthals were human. They used fire, buried their dead with rituals, wore jewelry, possibly wore make-up, and even organized and heated the water in their homes. They were humans, made in God’s image and descended from Adam and Eve just like us. Neanderthals simply represent a people group that formed after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel, after the Flood, just a few thousand (not hundreds of thousands) years ago. They had unique characteristics that likely became more prominent as they were isolated from other people by the divinely created language barrier. So it’s to be expected in a biblical worldview that modern humans and Neanderthals share DNA.

You can learn more about Neanderthals on our website.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

When Is a Butterfly Not a Butterfly?

Anyone familiar with the ministry of Answers in Genesis will know that we’ve said many times before that what you believe about the past influences how you interpret the observational evidence we see in the present.

This concept is so important that it’s addressed in the first exhibit inside our Creation Museum. It explains why creationists and evolutionists can look at the same evidence about origins and reach completely different conclusions. So if you start with the belief of slow and gradual change over millions of years, that’s how you will interpret the evidence we can study in the present. But if you start with God’s Word, then you see and interpret the evidence through the lens of Scripture and what it teaches us about history. And you know what? What we see in the present confirms what we read in God’s Word, not man’s made-up evolutionary story about the past.

“Butterfly-Like” Fossil Found

Well, a recent, popular news item provides a vivid reminder of this important principle. This news piece was reporting on Smithsonian scientists’ study of some well-preserved insect fossils. Supposedly, according to the evolution story, these “large butterfly-like insects known as Kalligrammatid lacewings” have been extinct for 120 million years and lived during the so-called Mesozoic Era.

Now, by closely observing these fossils, Smithsonian scientists discovered that these insects had elongated, tubular mouthparts “strikingly similar” to the proboscis of modern butterflies. Based on the presence of carbon in this “food tube,” the scientists concluded that they feasted on “sugary pollen drops” and served as pollinators. These insects also had eyespot patterns that might have contained melanin (pigment) and possibly bright colors and patterns—just like modern butterflies. And they even have fine scales on their wings—just like butterflies do. In fact, these insects seem so similar to butterflies that the researchers concluded that all of these butterfly features evolved twice due to so-called “convergent evolution.” This means that the researchers believe that “two distinct groups of organisms evolve similar traits as they interact to similar features in their environments.”

Evolutionists Refuse to Admit a Butterfly Is a Butterfly

So if they have mouths, feeding tubes, wings, scales, and maybe even pigment just like butterflies, why not call them butterflies? Well, these researchers can’t do that because butterflies supposedly didn’t evolve for another 50 million years! And, according to the evolutionists’ worldview, the plants that butterflies feed from also hadn’t evolved yet. So instead of interpreting these fossils as butterfly fossils and questioning their presuppositions about the evolutionary timeline for butterflies, the scientists call them something entirely different and say that evolution just evolved the same body design and features in strikingly similar ways twice. The verse 2 Peter 3:5 really sums up these scientists: they are “willingly ignorant.”

During my debate with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” two years ago, he implied that there aren’t any fossils out of place in the evolutionary tree and said that, “If you can find just one fossil that has swum between the layers, bring it on! You could change the world!” Well, there are plenty of examples—like these butterfly fossils! But instead of recognizing that they’ve discovered a fossil totally out of order within the evolutionary timeline, the evolutionists either adjust the timeline to make it fit, or they create a whole new species or kind of animal to explain the fossil!

So, it’s not about the evidence—it’s about an interpretation of the evidence! Evolution is just a story, and evolutionists will change the story to fit whatever they find! By the way, God’s Word never changes!

It’s a Worldview Debate

The origins debate isn’t science vs. religion as so many people think it is. It’s one worldview vs. a different worldview; man’s word about the past vs. God’s Word about history. It’s all about an interpretation of the evidence and what you believe about the past, because your belief about the past influences how you interpret the evidence in the present. As Christians, we need to start with God’s Word as we interpret the past. God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and His Word will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Boys and Girls and Geese

Use This Evolutionary Children’s Book To Teach Your Kids the Fairy Tale

Imagine a dad sitting down with his children to tell them a story. He begins, “Children, did you know you are related to every moose, every dog, every goose, every finch, every tortoise and every cat?”

The dad continues, “But it’s not just animals you are related to. You are also related to all living things, every plant too.”

Can you then imagine the children’s questions and the dad’s answers?

“Dad, am I related to a banana?”

“Of course, Son, you are related to everything—bananas, tapeworms, ticks, bacteria, flies, ants, bees, camels, pigs—yes, every living thing is related to you.”

Another child responds, “But, Dad. That’s a fairy tale—it doesn’t make sense.”

“Well, children, I have this new book that I’ll read to you called Charlie and The Tortoise.1 The author tells a story about a man named Charles Darwin who popularized an idea to explain how living things arose by themselves. Let me read you the story.”

Yes, there is a recently released children’s book that tries to indoctrinate children into believing that a fairy tale is true!

Notes about Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species are found at the end of the book. They include this statement:

His book showed how all living things are connected, and how animals and plants adapt over long periods of time!
The children’s book states the following:

After years of study, Charlie taught the world, that we’re all connected, every boy and girl. Every horse and every moose. Every dog and every cat. Every finch and every goose. Even tortoises that chat!
Now, what is the author’s main evidence to show children that all life is related and that all boys and girls evolved from ape-like creatures?

Well, it’s depicted in this diagram:

image

Now, isn’t that powerful evidence? Isn’t it obvious that different species of finches prove that all life is connected, and that boys and girls are related to all animals and plants? Unfortunately, generations of high school and college students have already been led to believe that speciation in finches is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Following the finch illustration, the book shows a diagram of reptiles supposedly evolving into birds, and ape-like creatures evolving into humans.

image

From variation in finches to reptiles becoming birds, and from ape-like creatures becoming humans! Actually, I think I might use this book with my own grandchildren to help them see that evolution is simply a fairy tale! Then I will take our grandkids to the Creation Museum and show them our display of Darwin’s finches, plus an exhibit on our dog skulls.

image

I would explain to my grandchildren that there is actually more variation in species of dog skulls than in finches. Then I would talk to them about the fact that finches remain finches and dogs remain dogs. I would then read God’s Word in Genesis out loud, where we are told that God created each kind of animal after its own kind. According to the Bible, we would expect each kind to produce its own kind—and that’s exactly what we observe in nature.

Sadly, many parents will read this new Darwin book for children and present the evolutionary content as true! To counter the massive indoctrination of evolution in popular books and videos, public schools, media, and museums, Answers in Genesis has made a large range of books, DVDs, and other resources available to help parents teach children the truth of Creation, the Fall, and the saving gospel.

What are the implications of teaching generations of children that they are just animals who are related to all living things like animals and plants? The more such a view permeates their thinking, the more they will see human life as nothing special. This would have an effect on how they view abortion, for example. After all, humans are just animals—if you can get rid of an animal you don’t want, why not also get rid of a child in the womb? It would also have an effect on how young people view suicide. After all, if we are just animals and we cease to exist when we die, what’s the point of living anyway? Unfortunately, there is an alarming increase in teenage suicide (as reported recently). Also, why not kill fellow humans if you don’t like them, as they are just animals anyway in a survival-of-the-fittest world?

Now don’t get me wrong. A young person will not wake up one day and say, “Oh, I’m just an evolved animal; therefore, I’m going to abort a baby, or kill someone, or commit suicide.” But in reality, what they are being taught concerning atheistic evolution will permeate their thinking. Over time, they will begin to act consistently with this evolutionary mindset that has saturated their worldview.

Indeed, evil ideas like atheistic evolution have evil consequences.

I urge you to do your best to raise up generations of children who understand that they are special—made in the image of God. But at the same time, we need to share with them that they have a problem called sin, and that’s why God sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin so that the relationship with our God can be restored. After all, God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son to provide a gift of salvation for us.

No, we’re not related to geese, finches, dogs, cats, or bananas. We were created in the image of God, separate from all living things (Genesis 1:27). That’s why God sees us as so valuable, in fact, so much so that He Himself paid the price so we can be saved and live with Him for eternity.

To help your children understand the true purpose and meaning of life, bring them to the Creation Museum and take advantage of our More Kids Free program through June. Also, visit the Answers in Genesis online bookstore and obtain resources that will teach your children the truth about who they are, where they came from, what their problem is (sin), and what the solution is in Jesus Christ. And plan to bring them to the life-size Ark that opens July 7 here in Northern Kentucky and teach them the truth about God’s Word and its accounts of the Flood, Ark, and Christ coming to earth to offer salvation.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Show post

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson #fundie answersingenesis.org

Because we start from the right foundation, we’re going to get the right answer. Now, one of the things evolutionists commonly challenge us with is, “Well, you’re not scientists. You don’t make testable predictions. You just say ‘God did it, that’s the end of it.” This is a stereotype, a straw man, and it’s not true. For example, the most important question of the evolutionary model is, “How’s evolution supposed to work?” The answer: mutations. Now, young-earth creationists can predict the mutation rate for whatever DNA sequence you want better than the evolutionists can. So, the irony of this, if there’s ever a topic where the evolutionists should excel, that one topic is actually where the creationists are the strongest in terms of the biological model.

Show post

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

What Became of Noah and His Wife?

Although Noah lived for 950 years, the Bible only tells us about a small fraction of his life. At 500, his oldest son was born, and the Flood came 100 years later. Sometime after the Flood, we know that he became drunk, leading to the infamous situation with his son, Ham. Have you ever wondered what happened to Noah and his wife following this event?

Noah and his wife likely did not have any other children—at least none that had children of their own, since the nations that were scattered from Babel were from Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:32). Speaking of Babel, we note that the event occurred in Noah’s lifetime, but it’s difficult to picture this righteous man who walked with God as being part of that rebellion.

Without details from the infallible record of Scripture, and as we prepare exhibits inside our Ark about the post-Flood world, we can only speculate how Noah spent his final centuries. A couple of the ancient Flood legends may give us a clue, but these fallible sources must be taken with a grain of salt.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Noah-like character, Utnapishtim, is said to live at the mouth of the rivers, on an island across the waters of death. Another legend places the Noah-like figure at the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

What impact would the rebellion at Babel have had on Noah and his wife? Perhaps they were unable to communicate with their descendants whose languages were confused at Babel. This may account for the traditions that view Noah and his wife as living out their days away from the rest of humanity.

Ultimately, we don’t know where Noah and his wife lived out their days. But we do know that Noah faithfully built the Ark, on which eight people (and thousands of animals) survived the global Flood.

Show post

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creation, Evolution, and the Passing of a Judicial Giant

We note the passing today of US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. As America’s judicial watchers assess his full legacy, we note there were strong hints that he denied the evolution worldview. Last year, speaking at his granddaughter’s high school graduation, Scalia declared: “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.” Biblical creationists argue for 6,000 years as the age of the earth and humankind; evolutionists contend that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago.

Justice Scalia was also one of the dissenters in the famous 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation be taught alongside evolution in government-run schools was unconstitutional. In his dissent, he wrote: “The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific ‘fact,’ since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory.”

Justice Scalia also opposed abortion and gay “marriage,” two hot-button issues addressed in the Book of Genesis. As a traditional Roman Catholic, he apparently accepted the teachings of Genesis that humans are created in God’s image and thus abortion is wrong and that marriage was instituted as one man for one woman, starting with Adam and Eve.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Darwin: The High Priest of the Religion of Evolution

Today, February 12, is Charles Darwin’s birthday. Around America and probably the UK as well, evolutionists are celebrating “Darwin Day” in honor of his life and studies. Sadly, even some churches have embraced Darwin and evolution and are teaching that evolution and the Bible are compatible, as part of “Evolution Sunday” this weekend. There are also Christian organizations attempting to get church leaders to accept evolutionary ideas and add them to the Bible.

As I wrote in my blog last month, secularists are trying to get Darwin Day recognized as a national holiday here in America. Right now, both a Senate and a House resolution are trying to accomplish this. Really, this is just another sign of the growing secularism in our culture. The religion of this age is naturalism (which is essentially atheism)—that’s what’s taught in our public schools and colleges. This religion is being forced on our culture in the name of “science.” But, really, it’s just an interpretation of the evidence, based on a belief about the past that rejects any supernatural involvement. The evidence (like fossils and rocks) doesn’t speak for itself—it must be interpreted, and it’s largely interpreted through the lens of millions of years, evolution, and naturalism. Generations of students have had the religion of atheism imposed upon them by the state—it has really become the state church.

Although we should expect our secular culture to embrace Darwin (after all, he’s the high priest of their religion), what’s truly sad is the fact that so much of the church has rejected the clear teaching of God’s Word in favor of man’s fallible ideas about origins. By accepting evolution and millions of years, the church has done the same thing the ancient Israelites did in the Old Testament. They mixed God’s Word with the idols and sinful practices around them—and God judged them for it. So many churches today are doing the same thing! They are picking and choosing which parts of God’s Word they will trust and are adding man’s ideas—really, man’s religion—into God’s Word. And remember what happened to the Israelites as a result of their compromise!

We need to start our thinking with God’s Word. God, who is outside of time, has clearly told us what He did and how He did it to bring the space/mass/time universe and all life into existence. He does not lie (Titus 1:2), and His Word will endure (Isaiah 40:8). Humans, on the other hand, were not there at the beginning of the universe, and are driven by sin to be their own god (Genesis 3:5). Evolutionary ideas are based on a desire to explain life and the universe without God. Why should that kind of philosophy have any place in the church? It shouldn’t! God’s Word needs to be our starting point—not man’s sinful and fallible ideas.

On February 12 (and on every day of the year), we need to be exalting our eternal Creator God, not a fallible sinful human who has already had to face his Creator!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Voyage Begins Again!

There will never be another global Flood. That was God’s promise to us in Genesis 9:15, when He gave us the rainbow as a sign of His covenant with man and all living creatures.

The Bible makes it clear, however, that there will be another global judgment: next time by fire. As God’s Word states, it will be the Final Judgment as: “the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:12).

Today, we don’t need another Ark to save animals and people from a global Flood. But we do need another kind of Ark, and to take people on what we are calling “a voyage of discovery.”

More than ever, people need to discover the truth of God’s Word beginning in Genesis and the saving gospel of the New Testament. That is especially true today for teens and millennials (including those inside the church). Our culture needs to take a voyage of discovery and discover that:

God’s Word concerning the history of the universe and all life is true.
God’s Word concerning man’s sinful state and his need of salvation in Christ is true.
Just like the angel in the book of Revelation, we need to be preaching the gospel and warning people about the judgment to come:

There will never be another global Flood. That was God’s promise to us in Genesis 9:15, when He gave us the rainbow as a sign of His covenant with man and all living creatures.

The Bible makes it clear, however, that there will be another global judgment: next time by fire. As God’s Word states, it will be the Final Judgment as: “the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:12).

Today, we don’t need another Ark to save animals and people from a global Flood. But we do need another kind of Ark, and to take people on what we are calling “a voyage of discovery.”

More than ever, people need to discover the truth of God’s Word beginning in Genesis and the saving gospel of the New Testament. That is especially true today for teens and millennials (including those inside the church). Our culture needs to take a voyage of discovery and discover that:

God’s Word concerning the history of the universe and all life is true.
God’s Word concerning man’s sinful state and his need of salvation in Christ is true.
Just like the angel in the book of Revelation, we need to be preaching the gospel and warning people about the judgment to come:

Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water” (Revelation 14:6–7).
Creation Wise: Ark of Salvation
In this secularized time, I believe one of the best and most effective ways to reach tens of millions of people with the gospel message is to build another Ark—a gospel-focused life-size Ark—and show the world that science confirms the Bible. God’s Word is true, and we all need to come to repentance.

Other than the Cross, I believe Noah’s Ark is the greatest reminder of the soul-saving gospel. Just as Noah and his family had to go through the one Ark door to be saved, so we need to go through the one door, Jesus Christ, to be saved. Jesus said: “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9).

By God’s grace, on July 7, the life-size Ark, one of the greatest Christian outreaches of this era, will open to the public. This huge ship will take visitors on a very special voyage:

to experience the most authentic reconstruction of Noah’s Ark, built according to the dimensions in the Bible
to get an idea of what it was like in Noah’s day
to get answers to questions about the Ark and Flood
to be taught about the truth of God’s Word, beginning with its history in Genesis
to be challenged concerning the need for every person to go through the “door” (Jesus Christ) and be saved from the coming judgment, and live for eternity with their Creator and Savior.
Because of our conviction that we need to reach the masses with an evangelistic message—the most important message in the universe—we have started an unprecedented national media blitz.

You may know that AiG has a decade-long history of utilizing the mass media in a high-profile way, in both Christian and secular outlets, to promote the various initiatives of this Bible-affirming ministry. Because the Ark Encounter is every bit the quality of a major attraction in California (like Universal Studios) or Florida (like Disney World), yet with an unmistakable and bold Christian message, I believe it’s vital we do our best to convince people across America and around the world to visit.

In the spirit of leveraging every available media by which to effectively communicate the Ark’s opening date and help families plan their summer trip to the Ark Encounter, on New Year’s Eve we launched an aggressive national branding campaign to bring awareness of the amazing, huge Ark. It began on the Fox News Channel at Times Square, and then we went on to many other major media outlets, both Christian and secular. (You can read about this large media campaign.)

When the secular media ask me (constantly) about the purpose of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and now the Ark Encounter, I tell them that our message is simply this:

The history in the Bible is true, and the gospel based in that history is true!

We also share with the media this gospel verse: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

So, the voyage begins . . . again . . . on July 7! Help get the word out, plan your trip, and purchase advance tickets when you visit ArkEncounter.com.

Show post

Dr. Marcus Ross #fundie answersingenesis.org

Winged Wonders

Creation on Display

Winged reptiles were primitive, clumsy, “prehistoric” beasts, barely able to get off the ground, right? Take a closer look and see.

As big as a hang glider and bristling with teeth, it’s no wonder this fossil flying monster is called Anhanguera (ahn-yang-WHERE-ah), or “old devil.” Today, you may see Anhanguera in a museum’s “Prehistoric Flight” display, but there’s nothing primitive about it. From head to tail, the old devil was loaded with unique and sophisticated flying designs.

Wingin’ It
Anhanguera was geared to soar on narrow, sailplane-like wings that spanned 15 feet (4.5 m). As with other pterosaurs, more than half the wing’s length actually trailed from a single supersized finger, the fourth digit (corresponding to our ring finger). This gigantic wing finger had to be large enough and strong enough to bear the stresses on the main wing membrane, which stretched from the fingertip all the way to the ankle.

Much more than a simple flap of skin stretched over bones, the pterosaur wing packed all the complexity of the most advanced jet fighter wing—flaps, ailerons, spoilers, and more—into an incredibly thin sheet.

The wing membrane consisted of three layers. The outermost layer was made of long, thin, structural fibers called actinofibrils (ak-TIN-oh-FYE-brils), found only in pterosaurs. These fibers kept the membrane stretched tight during flight. Just below was an intricate web of muscle and connective tissue that allowed Anhanguera to control the curvature of its wing even more precisely than birds do. The deepest layer consisted of the blood vessels that fed the muscles. All this squeezed into a wing membrane just hundredths of an inch—a millimeter or two—thick!

Fuzzy-Dactyls
Pterosaurs didn’t have feathers or hair to protect them from the wind chill of flying, like birds and bats do. They had their own system instead. Covering most of the body were short, quarter-inch (5–7 mm) hair-like structures called pycnofibers (PICK-no-FYE-berz). They aren’t frequently fossilized, but when preserved they have been found on the head, body, and limbs (not on the wings so far). Though pycnofibers’ structure differs from mammal hair, they attached to the skin and likely performed some of the same functions.

This unique insulation gave the old devil a distinctly fuzzy appearance. While pycnofibers show no direct evidence of color, advanced ultraviolet photography of some pterosaur fossils shows they possessed beautiful color patterns on their crests. So forget the dull greens and grays in old dinosaur books; pterosaurs flew with flair!

Breathing Room
To make flight possible you need lots of oxygen flowing through your body. To help with this, Anhanguera had pneumatized (NEW-mah-tized) bones—hollow bones that contained air sacs. The air sacs inflated and deflated like balloons, drawing in air and continuously passing it through the lungs. The lungs themselves didn’t inflate because Anhanguera’s chest was stiff and could not expand like ours.

The pneumatized bones in the neck, arm, back, and pelvic regions are clues that Anhanguera had an advanced, lightweight, ultra-efficient, bird-like respiratory system to keep it flying for long periods out over the ocean.

Fly Fishing
While flying, Anhanguera was looking for food. With large, forward-facing eyes, it had great eyesight. The big eye sockets and long, toothy jaw make the skull look large from the side, but it was narrow and filled with open cavities to be aerodynamic and lightweight.

The old devil’s mouth was filled with teeth, ideal for scooping up fish, which, in the post-Fall world, made up nearly all of its diet. Anhanguera was initially created to eat plants, and its tooth structure was likely different at the beginning. But by the time of the Flood, the whole world was filled with violence, and this includes the specimens buried by the Flood (Genesis 6:11).

Anhanguera belongs to a large group of flying reptiles called pterosaurs, which had many other cutting-edge designs for flight, including unique bones, fused vertebrae, and large brains with specialized regions that processed flight inputs. Each pterosaur displays its own variation on central themes: body size, wing shape, crest, tail, and no doubt color, behavior, and more. God’s astounding variety and intricate designs continue to show us His great creativity and love of a bountiful creation.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Sadly, our President, even though he stated last night that he wants God to bless America, will not acknowledge the Creator God of the Bible—in fact, he has done the opposite: actively supported the removal of the one true God from the public arena. His belief in this regard was seen, for instance, in the recent lighting of the national Christmas tree in Washington, DC, when the President began his speech by saying “happy holidays”—twice.

While he may use the word Christmas on occasion, we all know that when the President says “happy holidays,” like in his speech, it’s largely a deliberate way to keep Christ out of Christmas. He has turned Christmas-related events into secular ones, instead of acknowledging the Babe in a manger—the One who came to be our Savior over 2,000 years ago.

Now, Christians should respect the office of the presidency and pray for our elected officials. But when their actions go contrary to the absolute authority of God’s Word, then we should say something.

Also at the Christmas tree lighting, the first lady, along with the Muppet character Miss Piggy, read a story from the children’s book A Visit from St. Nicholas—a story about Santa Claus.


So the President and the first lady have told Americans that the real reason for the season is to have a happy holiday and enjoy stories about Santa.

At our Christmas Town program at the Creation Museum, we celebrate Christmas in the right way: we reflect on the greatest gift God gave to mankind—the gift of His Son, Jesus—and worship Him. He was the Babe in a manger—the God-man—who came to earth to provide the only way for humans to live forever with their God.

Christmas is a time to celebrate Jesus Christ (as we should do every day of the year) and remember the true account (the historical record) of the birth of a baby. He was the incarnation of the Son of God—the Son of God who took on a fleshly, bodily form.

Second, did God hear President Obama at the end of his speech when he said “God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America”? I suggest God did not. Hear God’s Word from Isaiah chapter 59:

And the President has helped this nation be “defiled with blood.” He has condoned the murder of millions of children in their mother’s wombs. The same President who said “God bless the United States of America” on Sunday night actually said this in July: “God bless Planned Parenthood.” In other words, he asked God to bless the biggest child-murdering machine in America! Will God ever bless a nation that is so guilty of defiling this land with the shed blood of millions of children?

I humbly suggest that God “will not hear” the President when he asks for God’s blessing on this nation! How could God hear this plea when the iniquities of this nation and the President are so great?

May God have mercy, and may God raise up people to repair the breach in this nation—a breach that has allowed rampant sin and the mocking of God’s Word to permeate the culture.

The prophet Isaiah in chapter 58 declared, “Those from among you shall build the old waste places; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; and you shall be called the Repairer of the Breach, the Restorer of Streets to Dwell In” (verse 12).

This nation as a whole, and the President in particular, needs to repent before the one true God and return to His Word as the absolute authority in all matters of life and conduct.

The President can talk about the threat of continued terrorism all he wants. But unless this nation deals with gross sin that permeates the culture, I sadly predict that this nation will not see the end of terrible tragedies, like terrorism.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Will There Be a National Darwin Day?

Will Darwin Day be honored as a national holiday here in America? Well, a resolution was reintroduced to the US House of Representatives recently to recognize Charles Darwin’s birthday (February 12, 2016) as a national holiday because of many absurd reasons. There has since been an additional resolution from a Democratic Senator that would show Congressional support for the Darwin Day distinction.

Now, some of the reasons listed nationally for celebrating Darwin, who of course was not an American, include the following:

•Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

•It has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions.

•The teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems.

•Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.

These are terrible reasons to make Darwin Day a national holiday. Putting aside the fact that Darwin was not an American, Darwinian evolution has no confirmation in observational science. What we see in the world is consistent with God’s Word, not evolutionary ideas about the past, and much of what we observe actually contradicts evolutionary ideas.

Darwin isn’t a great example of “human curiosity and ingenuity”—he was compelled to come up with a way to explain life without God because he rejected God. Although AiG doesn’t lobby for it because creation would probably be poorly represented by teachers, mandating that creation be taught alongside evolution doesn’t compromise “scientific and academic integrity”—if done properly, it promotes critical thinking and inspires a desire to learn more about God’s creation.

And Darwin isn’t a “worthy symbol” of the promotion of “a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.” He was racist and his ideas were racist! Choosing Darwin as the symbol of “scientific advancement” instead of many more worthy and less controversial figures like Newton, Mendel, or Pasteur seems to be nothing more than an attempt to push the anti-God religion of secularism on the nearly half of Americans who believe in a Creator.

Proposed Holiday Shows How Anti-God Our Society Has Become

This proposed new holiday only emphasizes how anti-God our society has become. Christian holidays like Christmas or Easter have been secularized to the point where Nativity scenes and crosses are being taken out of public places, yet a secular figure whose ideas on the origin of life are a major tenet of the secular religion of humanism can be publicly applauded and celebrated. It’s not really Darwin who’s being celebrated on Darwin Day, it’s an anti-God religion and its foundation of evolution and millions of years that’s being celebrated. Actually, the intolerant secularists (intolerant of Christianity in particular) are now wanting more and more to impose their anti-God religion on the culture.

On the home page of the International Darwin Day website (a website that promotes the celebration of Darwin around the world) scrolls several phrases: “Let’s celebrate intellectual bravery . . . perpetual curiosity . . . hunger for truth . . . Let’s celebrate Darwin Day.” It should be more like “let’s celebrate man’s fallible ideas being trusted over God’s infallible Word!” This is really a worship of man, a worship of the god of self.

Darwin Day is a day that celebrates the legacy of a man who elevated his own fallible ideas over God’s Word. Darwin took the things he observed—natural selection and adaptation—and leapt to the conclusion that these small, observable changes within a kind could lead to huge, unobserved (and still unobserved!) changes between kinds. But his ideas still have no observational corroboration. What we see in nature is kinds that reproduce according to their kinds with only limited amounts of variation within the kind. We do see common designs in all of creation but that is explained by a common Designer, not common descent. This is consistent with God’s Word, not Darwin’s imaginations about the past.

This February 12, I encourage you to celebrate the truth of God’s unchanging Word. Use “Darwin Day” as a springboard for conversations with your friends and family about the flaws of evolution and show them how observational science confirms God’s Word from the beginning. And then challenge people that the history in the Bible—starting with Genesis—is true, and that’s why the gospel based in that history is true.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Borrows from a Christian Worldview

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” of TV fame has produced another Big Think video on evolution. This time he tries to explain the origin of ethics—a major problem to solve in a secular worldview—by appealing to naturalistic evolution. But, really, all this video did was highlight how utterly blind Nye is. You see, while Nye gave lip service to evolution for the origin of ethics, all he really did was borrow from a Christian worldview!

What’s the “Best Way to Live?”

Nye states that we need to appreciate ethics, which he basically defines as “the best way to live . . . in the human tribe.” Of course, this is an arbitrary statement. You see, what or who defines what “the best way” is? That’s the foundational problem with ethics apart from God and His Word. Who or what decides what is “best” and what is not? There is no ultimate authority for making this decision! So, really, how can anyone say that something is right or wrong? Something might be wrong for them, but they can’t say it’s wrong for someone else. They have no authority on which to ground such a statement!

Do Jerks Survive?

Then Bill Nye goes on to say, “what we feel is a result of evolution. Our ancestors who were anti-social jerks got pushed aside by the ones that were perhaps more social and less jerky.” Frankly, this is a completely nonsensical statement for an evolutionist to make—the opposite of what Nye is saying is actually true in an evolutionary worldview. Evolution is supposed to be all about survival of the fittest, with only the toughest survive. Stalin didn't get pushed aside—he is estimated to have ordered the murder 50 million people to stay in power in the Soviet Union. In the animal world, the biggest gorilla dominates his tribe until a bigger, stronger, younger one comes along and pushes him aside. It’s not usually the “anti-social jerks” who are pushed aside—it’s the weak and small ones who are. Killing 50 million people isn’t very social and the lead gorilla doesn’t gain control by being friendly and social. Actually, in both cases, power was asserted and leadership was gained by being an anti-social jerk. By arguing that our supposed social and “less jerky” ancestors made it, Nye is really stating the exact opposite of what evolutionists predict and depend upon.

He also says, “You don’t want to be meek. You want to have the right level of aggression and the right level of accommodation to your fellow creatures. And when it comes to ethics, when you look at whatever scheme you feel is most reasonable to pass your genes on to the future, that usually leads to what we all consider ethical behavior.” Here, Nye’s being a bit more consistent with his evolutionary beliefs. Being meek won’t get you very far in a dog-eat-dog evolutionary world, but it’s how followers of Christ are told to act—in fact, in God’s kingdom it’s the meek, not the strongest and fittest, who inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). And who’s to say what the “right level of aggression and . . . accommodation” is? Again, this is an arbitrary statement.

And if ethics is just about “whatever scheme you feel is most reasonable to pass your genes on to the future,” then what’s to stop someone from doing whatever they can to further themselves and their family? According to this ethic, maybe committing adultery is best for passing along genes to another generation. Or maybe stealing and killing to build an empire to leave to a future generation is “reasonable.” Again, this kind of an ethic just leads to everyone doing what’s right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25) because there’s no foundation on which to ground ethical principles.

And, furthermore, if we’re supposed to do what’s “reasonable” to pass our genes along for the future, why does Bill Nye support abortion? It certainly doesn’t seem reasonable to kill the child who is carrying your genes! By affirming abortion and saying that ethical behavior involves passing along genes, Bill Nye is again being inconsistent with his own beliefs.

The Golden Rule

Now, here’s where Nye really borrows from a biblical worldview, “So this old thing, expressed as the Golden Rule, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ if you can do that . . . I think you will get through life as well or better than anyone.” But if we're just evolved animals, why should we “do unto others”? Shouldn’t I just do what’s best for me? Most animals don’t look out for others. A leopard doesn’t ignore an injured gazelle because that’s what it would want some other creature to do for it. It kills and eats the gazelle with no thought for the gazelle because that’s what enhances the leopard’s survival. This is how evolution is supposed to operate! What part of survival-of-the-fittest calls for looking out for others? This is completely nonsensical in an evolutionary worldview.

By saying that the Golden Rule is a solid ethic, Bill Nye is borrowing from a Christian worldview. It’s in a biblical worldview that caring for others makes sense. We’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), and loved by Him. So it only makes sense to look out for others. And not only that, but we are expressly commanded by God to do just that: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Bill Nye is stealing from a biblical worldview in a clumsy attempt to give an evolutionary explanation for ethics.

Nye can’t explain ethics using evolution because, if he did, the only ethic he would be able to support is “kill or be killed,” “might makes right,” or “survival of the fittest.” But he knows that these ideas aren’t a good ethic for humans because, whether he admits it or not, he has some knowledge of God and His law in his heart (Romans 2:15). So he tries to support the ethic he believes to be true, but he has to use biblical principles and a biblical worldview in order to do so!

All One Race

I had to smile when, at the end of the video, Nye stated, “Everybody who’s a human is somehow related. If you go far enough back, everyone is related.” Yes, Bill, you are right—everyone is related. But you don’t have to go very far back, just about 6,000 years to Adam and Eve. And this isn’t an evolutionary idea; actually it defies evolutionary predictions. In reality, it’s a biblical truth: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Discovery of King Hezekiah’s Seal Confirms God’s Word

I always get excited when I read about archaeological finds in the Middle East that confirm what God’s Word says. Such discoveries have happened many times over the years. Well, a recent find in Jerusalem gives us a personal look into the greatest king of Judah—Hezekiah, the great reformer. The biblical account of Hezekiah and his religious reforms is personally inspiring and encouraging to me. Last summer I wrote an article for Answers [i]magazine about raising up Hezekiah-type reformers today. I encourage you to read the online version of that article on our website.

Well, in the Old Testament we read of King Hezekiah, one of the greatest kings since David and Solomon. Living about 700 years before Christ, his greatness came from the fact that “he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father David had done” (2 Chronicles 29:2). Because he loved the Lord, this king of Judah “did what was good and right and true before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, in the law and in the commandment, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart. So he prospered” (2 Chronicles 31:20–21). He destroyed the idols (2 Chronicles 31:1), purified the Temple and restored the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 29), and started celebrating Passover once again (2 Chronicles 30). Second Kings 18:5 says of him, “Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.”

Events from the reign of King Hezekiah have already been confirmed by archaeology. Second Chronicles 32:2–4 and 2 Kings 20:20 mention Hezekiah’s tunnel, dug to prepare for an Assyrian siege (a siege God supernaturally kept from happening in 2 Kings 19:25–36), and it’s still part of Jerusalem’s water system today. The Bible mentions that Sennacherib laid siege to the Judean city of Lachish and conquered it (2 Kings 18:13), was defeated in Jerusalem, and then was killed by his sons in the temple of his god (2 Kings 19:37). Both the siege of Lachish and his death have been confirmed by archaeology.

Well, archaeology now offers us a more personal touch from Hezekiah. In the rubbish heap outside a royal building in Jerusalem, a tiny seal impression, called a “bulla,” was discovered. Barely half an inch wide, this seal reads, “Belonging to Hezekiah, [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah.” Eilat Mazar, a third-generation archaeologist who directed the dig, says, “The seal of the king was so important. It could have been a matter of life or death, so it's hard to believe that anyone else had the permission to use the seal. Therefore, it's very reasonable to assume we are talking about an impression made by the King himself, using his own ring.” This is the first seal bearing King Hezekiah’s name ever discovered by an archaeologist (others have been sold on the antiquities market, but they were not discovered by archaeologists, so their authenticity is questionable). It offers a personal look into King Hezekiah since the seal probably came from the ring on his finger. Take a look at a photograph of this seal.

This incredible find confirms God’s Word yet again. Isn’t it exciting being a Christian and seeing how science is constantly confirming the truth of God’s Word? Of course, since the Bible is real recorded history, this is exactly what we should expect—and it’s exactly what we see!

You can read more about archaeology and God’s Word in this chapter from The New Answers Book 1, “Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson #fundie answersingenesis.org

I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it. Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians. We know from Romans 1 that non-Christians have a spiritual bias and deliberately suppress the truth. So the Scripture tells us that, yes, the vast majority of them have a compelling spiritual reason to ignore what we’re saying. And so, practically, the way it works itself out, is they never bother to consider it.

Also, most people go through the public school system, and they hear from an early age just evolution. They never hear, and they are not taught even to consider, an alternative hypothesis. So they are taught from an early age to suppress the truth, and so this is just the fruit of an educational system that ignores the opposition.

Also, by and large, they just don’t read our literature. They’re ignorant. Now, sadly, the professing Christians who hold evolution (for example, the BioLogos community) also seem to practice the same thing. In the few interactions I’ve had with their scholars, whether it’s theologians or scientists, they are clueless about anything scholarly that we’ve written. I’ll ask them, “Name the last young earth creationist scholarly book you’ve read.” The response: “I don’t know.” Have you read Coming to Grips with Genesis? No. Have you read Earth’s Catastrophic Past? No. So why don’t more people accept this? Because they’re totally ignorant of what we’ve printed. And they don't want to consider it.

And so to me that’s the answer to the question, “Why don’t more people believe it?” They never consider it; a lot of them probably don’t want to consider it because this obviously strikes at the very heart of their worldview, and Romans 1 says that it’s not just that there’s some indirect “Oh, I might have to think about Christianity.” No, the things of God are clearly seen from what has been made, so the creation issue strikes at the heart of their cherished beliefs, and they have to suppress it.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Can Dawkins Disprove God in 5 Steps?

Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!

He recently appeared on a Norwegian-Swedish television show called Skavlan where he quickly dismissed the idea of God by ticking off on his fingers five arguments for God.

Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says that “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.” Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.

Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.

Design Exists Because of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists (Romans 1:20). But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.” According to Dawkins, “Darwin has exploded once and for all the argument from design.” Dawkins recognizes that things do look designed, but says that the most likely explanation, a Designer, isn’t the case—natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!

People Hallucinate or Are Fooled?

Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease. Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too.

Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from—God Himself (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? As Pilate asked Jesus, without God and His Word, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And if we are just random chemical accidents, why should we trust anything that comes from our brain anyway? If Dawkins’ worldview is true, then he can’t trust anything that comes from his brain either! It’s ultimately a self-defeating argument. We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word.

If God Is the First Cause, Then Where Did God Come From?

Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from? Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time—in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity. This is silly. If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.

Darwin Explains How We Got Here Without God?

Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God. But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas—kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.

Pascal’s Wager a Silly Argument?

Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not. But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.

But Dawkins does get one thing (sort of) right in his short video in reference to Pascal’s wager. He says that perhaps the God of the Bible would not prefer someone who “slavishly pretends to believe something.” Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by “slavishly” pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10). That’s the good news of the gospel—salvation is a free gift to those who will put their faith in Christ.

My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne. If you are like Dawkins, or even if you believe in God but have not trusted in Christ for salvation, I encourage you to listen to the good news and believe in Christ and be saved.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Will Obama Celebrate Lucy Today?

As Google has reminded us all today, November 24, 2015, marks the 41st anniversary of the discovery in Ethiopia of the australopithecine popularly known as Lucy. Today’s Google Doodle honors the supposed human ancestor, and the drawing illustrates the worldview that believes in a supposed gradual evolution from ape to modern man, with Lucy in between. (Interestingly, November 24 is also the anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species.)

image

According to evolutionists, Lucy walked on two legs, and the group she represents is a distant ancestor of humanity (though how closely related is disputed even in their camp). US President Barack Obama even recently “met” Lucy and commented, almost reverently, on how she shows how all mankind is related to one another.

Obama stated, “We are reminded that Ethiopians, Americans, all the people of the world are part of the same human family, the same chain. And as one of the professors who was describing the artifacts correctly pointed out, so much of the hardship and conflict and sadness and violence that occurs around the world is because we forget that fact. We look at superficial differences as opposed to seeing the fundamental connection that we all share.”

And as I said in my post then, “We do not need to look to Lucy to unite us as part of some evolutionary human family. God’s Word makes it clear that we are all one family, not because of some alleged evolutionary connection, but because we’re all descended from Adam and Eve, who were specially created by God. We do not all belong to different races. We’re all one race—the human race.”

Sadly, this evolutionary influence is creeping into the church and being promoted by groups like BioLogos.

Really, this Google Doodle highlights where our culture is headed. Our supposed evolutionary ancestry is increasingly being celebrated—but it’s nothing more than a major tenet of the religion of naturalism. Google isn’t promoting science—they are promoting an interpretation of the past that is a key idea in the atheistic religion of naturalism. But as our culture moves farther and farther from biblical authority, we can only expect this kind of celebration of our alleged evolutionary past to continue, even creeping into the church.

But Lucy wasn’t a human ancestor. She’s just an extinct variety of ape. There is nothing about her to suggest that she’s a transitional form between ape-like and human-like. It’s simply an interpretation of the fossils from an evolutionary worldview.

Now, the Google Doodle shows Lucy (the one character that is drawn in color in the doodle) walking upright, very much like humans. But Lucy didn’t walk upright! That’s an interpretation based off a reconstruction of Lucy’s leg and hip bones and some fossilized footprints—clearly human footprints—found in Tanzania, far from Lucy’s resting place. Because these footprints are considered by the evolutionists to have been made too early to be humans, it’s assumed that a creature like Lucy must have made them. But Lucy (and others of her species that were later discovered) had ape hips, ape shoulders, ape wrists, ape fingers, and ape toes—they didn’t make those footprints! It’s an interpretation imposed on the fossils because of an evolutionary worldview. You can learn more about the idea that Lucy walked upright in “Lucy: Did She Walk Like Us?

We have a world-class hologram exhibit here at the Creation Museum that features Lucy. It shows how evolutionists and creationists come to the evidence—Lucy’s bones—with completely different starting points, and so they reach entirely different conclusions because of those starting points. From a biblical worldview it’s clear that Lucy is just an extinct variety of ape, amazingly designed for a tree-dwelling, knuckle-walking existence, and that she tells us nothing about human ancestry. She does, however, point toward a time after the Flood when there was more variety in the ape kind that has slowly died out.

You can learn more about Lucy and other supposed human ancestors in “Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?,” or in Dr. David Menton’s DVD Lucy—She’s No Lady!

By the way, it’s no wonder Obama has such a shifting worldview. Instead of anchoring his worldview/morality to the absolute authority of God’s Word, he anchors it the bones of Lucy—to the ever-shifting beliefs of man—to a man centered religion! That’s why we see moral relativism permeating the nation more and more. We need to pray for our leaders that they will turn to the God of Creation and believe His Word and anchor their worldview to one true God—the Creator God of the Bible.

You know, November 24 is a day that my family celebrates for a completely different reason. Today is my first grandson Malachi’s 16th birthday. We celebrate that God gave us this special gift—a grandson made in God’s image—on this day, and we think that’s a much better reason to celebrate November 24. And Malachi praises God too because he has put his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that’s more important than anything else in this life. Even more important than being President of the United States.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Real Mythbusters

An article on Cincinnati.com (AiG and the Creation Museum are located near Cincinnati) this week discussed the visit by the television series stars Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters.

The article commenced by discussing the Creation Museum:

The topic of Greater Cincinnati’s very own Creation Museum probably won’t come up during the local stop of “MythBusters,” because, as Adam Savage puts it, it’s not even wrong.

Savage explains this later in an interview with a reporter stating,

Q: Are you going to visit the Creation Museum while you’re in town?

A: Ah! I haven’t considered it, but holy [vulgar word], what an idea. I had forgotten it was there, but my goodness, I don’t think I could pass that up.

Q: Do you have a conflicted feeling about contributing money to the museum by paying the price of admission?

A: The conflicted feeling I have is, there is a scientific term which I really like that is “not even wrong,” and these are ideas that are so far off the mark they’re not even worth discussing. I’m worried about participating or giving oxygen to ideas that are not even wrong lest I lend them a credibility as something that’s debatable.

Q: So if you were to go to the museum, you wouldn’t talk about the experience on stage, because that would be giving it oxygen, as you say.

A: My particular bailiwick isn’t to be a provocateur in that regard. Again, part of it is not giving oxygen to ideas that I don’t think are very debatable. I have empathy for people. And I don’t feel like going up on stage and telling some members of the audience, “By the way, I think you’re idiots.” I tend to stay away from that sort of polemicism. At the same time, if I’m asked, I’ll respond to questions directly. I’ve never had a problem doing that on stage.

Q: What would the reason be for going to the museum, if it’s not for getting material for the stage show?

A: For me it’s sort of like slowing down and looking at the car accident.

Well, I’ve got news for Adam Savage: the real myth busters are found at the Creation Museum. If Savage came to the Creation Museum, he would meet some academics and scientists who powerfully bust the myth of molecules-to-man evolution:

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, who was actively involved in adult stem cell research and has been published in several peer-reviewed secular journals in this field.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD in geology from the University of Sydney, who was a researcher and editor on the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project from 1997–2007, and has published many articles in various peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, PhD in molecular genetics from Ohio State University, who was a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University, has published in several peer-reviewed journals, and is co-founder of the Microbe Forum.

Dr. David Menton, PhD in cell biology from Brown University, who was tenured at Washington University, served as the histology consultant for five editions of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, and was a guest lecturer in histology at Stanford University Medical School.

Dr. Tommy Mitchell, who earned his MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, has been a medical doctor since 1987, and is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Terry Mortenson, PhD in the history of geology from Coventry University in England and MDiv in systematic theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, has served as seminary and research staff for Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) teaching across Europe, and is still an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who earned an MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, is a retired obstetrician who earned board certification and fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and now writes extensively for AiG.

Dr. Danny Faulkner, PhD in astronomy from Indiana University, was a professor at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for 26 years, is a member of the Creation Research Society, operates the observatory and planetarium at the Creation Museum, and has written hundreds of papers in astronomy and astrophysics journals.

I challenge Adam Savage to make the short drive from Cincinnati and meet some true myth busters at the Creation Museum and see how his beliefs in evolution stand up against real observational science. In meeting with these academics and scientists, and touring our world-class museum with its stunning science exhibits, he will discover that evolution is a myth and gets busted for what it is—and he will learn the truth about the God who created him, that he has a sin nature, and is in need of salvation. Our burden is to reach Adam Savage with the saving message of the gospel and help him understand that observational science confirms that the Bible is the true history book of the universe.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Obama Appears on Cover of LGBT Magazine

President Obama has just become the first sitting President of the United States to appear on the cover of an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) publication. His photograph recently filled the cover of OUT magazine alongside the caption “Our President: Ally. Hero. Icon.”

President Obama also provided an interview for the magazine, in which he made several statements that helped highlight the change that has occurred in the Western culture’s thinking over the past few decades. He stated, “There had been a remarkable attitude shift — in hearts and minds — across America. The [Supreme Court] ruling [legalizing gay marriage] reflected that. It reflected our values as a nation founded on the principle that we are all created equal.” Now, this is ironic. Obama clearly believes in evolution. He even called the supposed human ancestor “Lucy” (really just an extinct ape variety) “our oldest ancestor” and said that “all the people of the world are part of the same human family, the same chain” because of our evolutionary connection! So first he says that we are all equal because we all evolved from a common ancestor, but now he says we’re all equal because we were created that way, which is a biblical principle. You really can’t have it both ways—did we evolve from a common ancestor or were we created to be equal? But President Obama is often inconsistent in his worldview!

He is right, however, in saying “there has been a remarkable attitude shift—in hearts and minds—across America” and that the Supreme Court ruling was a result of that. Our culture has, by and large, turned away from a biblical worldview—and President Obama has been leading this change in many ways. Instead of basing our morality on the firm, unchanging foundation of God’s Word, our culture has decided that whatever is right in its own eyes (Judges 21:25) is right and moral. This change has been dramatic, and many of the moral ills of our society (like abortion and gay “marriage”) are a result of this fundamental shift in our nation’s thinking.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Tragedy in Paris

Those of us who have visited Paris are stunned to see this beautiful city now filled with carnage resulting from several terror attacks that have claimed well over 100 lives and seen hundreds injured (dozens seriously). When such horrible tragedies occur, it makes all people think about their own mortality. As Christians, we understand, based on the teaching of Genesis 3 and other passages, that such evil acts are the consequence of the wicked sinful heart of man. When Christians agonize over terrible terrorist attacks, they should realize that evil like this is ultimately a result of our sin of rebellion against our Creator. As we look at the horrific TV images of terrorism, we can’t help but cry out as the Apostle Paul did:

O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Romans 7:24).

Our AiG website has articles on why horrible things happen in this world (like 9/11 in America) and why God allows them. You can find them later, but first, you should be praying for the people of France—in fact, the whole world that now fears terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists—that God would touch the hearts of each person affected in some way by the terrorism in Paris and bring them to Himself. We pray for the families of those who lost their lives; only the God of all comfort can truly console those who are in anguish right now. Then also pray that all people will recognize that they need to be ready to meet their Creator, for one day we will all face death.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Show post

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Emphasis added)

The new show at Stargazers Planetarium, Aliens: Fact or Fiction?, and the new Pocket Guide to UFOs & ETs point out that the Bible does not address the question of whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. However, we can use biblical principles to reach a conclusion about ETs. Romans 8 makes it clear that man’s sin has tainted the entire universe. So if there were beings on other planets similar to man, then those beings would be subject to the effects of man’s sin. Would this be just? Could sentient beings on other planets be fallen creatures? If so, and since these beings are not descendants of Adam, what would be God’s plan of redemption for them? The Bible indicates that man was made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) and is the center of God’s attention (Hebrews 2:7), leaving no room for other beings. It is clear from these and other considerations that there are no “aliens” living on other planets.

.........

Researchers1 have categorized some common elements to most claims of alien abduction. We need not discuss most of these here, but there are some important common themes. Many people report meeting a god-like creature or creatures during their abductions. Often these beings communicate universal-sounding messages or warn of impending nuclear or ecological disaster if mankind does not change his way. That is, the religious message, if there is one, is of the nature of a very hip, human-centered one.

Another common element is that most people who have claimed these close encounters with aliens profess spirituality, with a belief in God. As such, there is a wide distribution of denominations and sects represented among those who have claimed alien abduction. People reporting alien abductions also report indulging in the occult and new age practices in much higher proportion than the general population. Conspicuously absent from those reporting alien abductions are those who are truly born again followers of Christ. In fact, many researchers have collected reports of alien abductions abruptly ending when abductees verbally mention the name of Jesus.

These facts are extremely pertinent. If those who report alien abductions are sincere and truthful in relaying experiences that they firmly believe occurred, then we are left with the conclusion that there is a spiritual component, and that this spirituality is contrary to the Bible.

This is just one front in a spiritual war to divert people away from the truth of Scripture. We have already seen that the implication of the Bible is that Adam’s race is the only race of sentient, physical creatures in the universe. That is, there are no ETs to fly spaceships to Earth. But if one believes in evolution, one must accept the likelihood that life, even intelligent life, has evolved many times on other worlds. Thus, if life exists elsewhere, then that would argue against the Bible and hence the God of the Bible. So, a very effective tool in undermining the authority of the Bible and the gospel would be to convince as many people as possible that life exists elsewhere. What better way is there to do that than with flying saucers and “alien” visitations?

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Five Things Everyone Should Know

Well, here are the five things that Bill Nye says everyone needs to know about climate change:

Number One: Our Atmosphere

#1: The atmosphere is thin. Barely 60 miles, 100 kilometres, in outer space.

Now, we shouldn’t be concerned about our atmosphere being too thin because our atmosphere was designed by the perfect Creator. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take care of it—we certainly need to make sure we don’t fill our atmosphere with pollutants or punch holes in the ozone layer. But we also need to remember that our atmosphere was carefully put in place by our Creator. God knew exactly what kind of atmosphere we needed and He gave us that atmosphere. He even made Earth the perfect size to be able to hold this atmosphere! We can be confident that we have the perfect atmosphere for our planet.

Number Two: All the People

#2: There’s 7.3 billion people breathing and burning.

Now, I would like to know what Bill Nye would suggest we do about the number of people utilizing our atmosphere. Of course, since Nye is an atheist, he rejects the idea that there is a God who knew the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) when He created Earth. If Nye accepted God’s Word and God’s sovereignty, he would know that the all-powerful God would not allow humanity to die off by climate change or anything else. Nye also therefore rejects God’s Word as a basis for value, purpose, and meaning in life. Does he realize that, from his atheistic perspective, man is just an evolved animal and, in being consistent with an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” worldview, population alarmists could suggest mass killings or forced sterilizations as possible solutions in reducing the population? I’m sure he would be aghast at such suggestions—but then on what basis does he anchor his morality and determine what is ultimately right and wrong in this world? It comes down to one’s worldview. What solutions are there in Nye’s game of “blame man and his increasing population”?

Furthermore, this overpopulation mantra is losing support even from mainstream sociologists. In fact, some researchers are lamenting the possibility of a disastrous population decline. I remember studying books at university 40 years ago that were claiming the world was overpopulated! (And by the way, as you fly across countries around the world as much as I do and look down below, you realize the world is not overpopulated!) There are many other issues in regard to population, starvation, and so on, but that’s a different discussion altogether.

Number Three: Temperatures Changing

#3: All this heat energy in the atmosphere is changing things. It’s not just getting warmer, it’s changing.

Our climate is indeed changing but this is nothing new. Temperatures have been changing since the time of the catastrophic Flood of Noah’s day around 4,350 years ago. For example, during medieval times there was the Little Ice Age and it lasted until around 1850. The temperature has been rising since then. But before the Little Ice Age there was a warming trend that made it possible to farm the now icy waste of Greenland. Climates change! But we don’t have to be worried that the climate is going to run out of control and cause catastrophic changes. God has promised,

While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.
(Genesis 8:22)

Number Four: Rising Oceans

#4: This warmth is making the ocean get bigger. . . . When the ocean rises just this much [a few inches], this whole area will be under water, and not just this area, that area, that’s Miami.

Are ocean levels really going to rise dramatically and catastrophically because of man-made CO2 emissions?

It should be noted that evolutionists believe in many ice ages over Earth’s history. These ice ages, in the evolution model, would have dramatically dropped ocean levels, which would then have risen during the interglacial periods. In this view of Earth’s history, this happened many, many times without being caused by humans. Now, of course, biblical creationists reject this idea of multiple ice ages because we start with the true history in God’s Word. The Bible records the event of the global Flood of Noah’s Day. This Flood, and accompanying events such as massive volcanic activity, produced the perfect conditions for an Ice Age. This Ice Age lowered ocean levels for a time before they rose again as the continental ice sheets melted. So changes in sea level are not unprecedented in either an evolutionary or biblical model.

The idea of drastic ocean rise is debated among scientists. For instance, scientists and scholars involved with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reject the idea of alarming sea-level rise. Indeed, a writer for [i]Forbes[/i] notes that in the past the biblical city of Ephesus was a bustling port city but is now four miles from the sea, and that “the old Roman port Ostia Antica located where the Tiber River once emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea is now two miles up-river. When William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, he landed at an old Roman fort on a small harbor island on England’s south coast. That location, now known as Pevensey Castle, is now a mile from the coast.” So sea levels rise and fall naturally. There’s no cause for panic about rising ocean levels.

Actually, it’s ironic that Bill Nye is concerned about the people living in coastal cities. After all, wasn’t he just complaining about how 7.3 billion people breathe and burn our atmosphere? It’s inconsistent of him and others to express concern about the number of people on the planet but also be worried about the people living in coastal cities. But it’s actually good that Nye is concerned about the people living along the coast since we are supposed to value human life since all humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27–28). Of course, from an atheistic evolutionary position, why should he have any concern at all?

Number Five: Unprecedented Speed

#5: But the main, main, thing, everybody, . . . is the speed, it’s the rate at which things are changing. . . Oh yes, the world was once warmer, there was once more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is today, but all of this never happened this fast. And that’s what you gotta get your heads around.

So Bill Nye is saying that the warming isn't the problem—it’s been warmer before, but it’s the speed of the warming that’s the problem. Really, this exposes how climate change is a matter of interpretation—just like historical science, which depends on your views of the unobservable past.

According to the evolutionary model, which Bill Nye holds to with fervor, the Earth is millions of years old and the climate has been relatively stable since the last supposed glacial period over 10,000 years ago. Based on this model, and given that observational science shows that Earth’s climate is now changing, secularists such as Nye assume that human activity must be the cause of this change. If this is true, then a changing climate is understandably a concern for them. Now, this model uses methods such as tree ring and ice core dating to get these supposed stable temperature readings, but these methods are fraught with unprovable assumptions. So Nye’s concern about the speed of today’s climate change is based on unprovable assumptions about the past that are being used to interpret the data.

According to a biblical model of Earth’s history, Earth is only a few thousand years old. Our planet was created with a perfect climate, but this climate was upset at the time of the catastrophic global flood of Noah’s day, which destroyed and reshaped the surface of the Earth. This Flood was followed by the Ice Age which covered 30% of Earth’s surface in ice. This transitional climate slowly gave way to the present climate as the Earth evened out from the after-effects of the Flood. So, when we start with a biblical model for Earth’s history, we should expect variations in climate and temperature.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Climate-change alarmist Bill Nye the “Science Guy” of TV fame recently produced a short video called “5 Things You Need to Know About Climate Change.” Bill Nye has been a very vocal supporter of the idea of drastic human-caused climate change and has even accused creationists of rejecting climate change—even though we don’t reject it. Climate change is real; climates do change. But we reject the claims of climate change alarmists because we start from a different foundation. Even on a live CNN television interview right after the debate between Bill Nye and me last year, I told him that I do not reject climate change. But Bill refuses to acknowledge this because he wants people to believe creationists deny reality! The problem is that Nye denies that he is interpreting the evidence from a wrong foundation!

[...]

Your Starting Point

Your starting point in interpreting life affects your whole worldview. For instance, using Bill Nye’s starting point that all life evolved by natural processes, and man is just an animal related to all life, then abortion is just killing another animal—marriage can be however you want to define it! Your starting point determines how you interpret climate change, too.

We don’t need to be concerned about drastic climate change. Our climate, and the checks and balances that keep it operating within safe parameters, were designed by an all-wise Creator. And when you start with a biblical view of Earth’s history, you reach an entirely different conclusion about the nature and cause of climate change.

Here are five things every Christian needs to know about climate change:

1.Our climate and atmosphere were designed by an all-wise Creator.

2.Climates do change. They’ve changed before and they’ll change again.

3.Your interpretation of this change depends on your starting point—man’s opinion or God’s Word.

4.God has promised that the seasons will continue (Genesis 8:22).

5.We can have confidence that humanity won’t be snuffed out by climate change. Instead, we know that God is in control of history and it will not end until Jesus Christ returns.

You can learn more about climate change in chapter 16 of The New Answers Book 4, available to be read for free on our website.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dawkins’ Mind Is Closed

In an article titled “Atheist Richard Dawkins Calls It ‘Disgraceful’ That Presidential Hopefuls Are Creationists—and Reveals Which Religion Has ‘Maximum Toxicity,’” The Blaze website reports on a Fox News TV interview with prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins.

The Blaze article stated:

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins decried the fact that some Republican presidential candidates are creationists, calling it “disgraceful” and proclaiming that evolution is a “fact” that “you can not seriously disbelieve” . . . Dawkins repeatedly waded into controversial territory throughout the exchange, with Colmes at one point asking if the biologist believes that religious people are “mentally ill.” “It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them,” Dawkins responded. “If they believed what they did and they were the only one they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.”

During the interview, Dawkins was asked “whether the atheist leader would ever change his mind about God, he said that he’s open to the idea. ‘Just show me some evidence and I’ll change,’ Dawkins said.”

Well, Dawkins has been shown overwhelming evidence by many people through books, discussions, a radio debate with my friend Dr. Andy McIntosh, and so on! In fact, God tells us that people like Richard Dawkins are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Dawkins reminds me of the Pharisees in John 9. After Jesus had healed the man blind from birth, the Pharisees questioned the man and his parents, and even with the evidence glaring at them, they refused to believe. People like Dawkins also remind me of the chief priests in John 12:10 who wanted to kill Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead. Because of their hardened hearts, they refused to believe Jesus raised Lazarus and decided to try to kill Lazarus to get rid of the evidence! Yes, these are apt comparisons when you consider people like Richard Dawkins. We need to pray for him. His heart is hard and he is blind.

. . . whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So is Dawkins truly “open” to believing in God? Well, he pretends that he is willing to listen to evidence—but the evidence from his own life clearly shows that he refuses to believe despite the evidence. He is like the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:5 who deliberately reject, or are willingly ignorant of Creation, the Flood, and the coming judgment (the very things Dawkins rejects). It is a deliberate act on their part to ignore the obvious and reject the truth!

I’m reminded of what Abraham said about the rich man who wanted to come back from the dead and warn his brothers about judgment after life:

“Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29–31)

Dawkins has spent most of his life rejecting the writings of Moses, particularly Genesis, and trying to get as many people as he can to follow his rebellious lifestyle that leads directly to hell. Yes, we do need to pray much for him.

Lord, open Richard Dawkins’ mind, and let the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ illuminate his hardened heart!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Lessons from Back to the Future

Today, October 21, 2015, is the day that Marty McFly, the hero of the popular 1989 movie Back to the Future Part II, arrives on after he travels to the future. Although we don’t yet have flying, time-traveling DeLoreans, or self-adjusting and drying clothes, we don’t know if the Chicago Cubs will win baseball’s World Series this month, and our hoverboards today can barely get off the ground, we at AiG do have a great time-traveling adventure in store for you.

In our online store we have a movie that features time travel but teaches an important lesson. This film, called Time Changer[/i], is set in 1890 and features a Bible professor looking to receive unanimous endorsement from the board for a new book he wrote. But one board member won’t endorse it because he believes the views in the book are dangerous for future generations. He then sends Carlisle into the 21st century to see where his ideas will lead. This movie is described as a humorous “conversation starter” on biblical authority and why it is so important that we stand on the authority of God’s Word without compromise. You can learn more about this faith-affirming movie.

Now, many secularists will argue against biblical creation by saying that we have a “time travel” problem. The supposed problem goes like this: there are some galaxies that are so far away it would take light from their stars billions of years to reach Earth. Now, they say, since we can see them, their light has already arrived here, and so the Earth can’t be only thousands of years old, it must be billions. But, creation astronomers and astrophysicists have researched this question and have posed several ways to explain it in a biblical worldview. You can read more about proposed solutions and assumptions inherent in the argument.

Actually, this is a poor argument to use for those who hold to the big bang to use because it’s self-refuting—they have a similar problem! You see, in the big bang model light has to travel farther than is possible in even 14 billion years. You see, according to the big bang model, at the beginning the universe would develop different temperatures in different places in the universe. But everywhere we measure, the universe has the same temperature—even in the most distant galaxies. In order for all of the different places of the universe to reach a uniform temperature, light had to be exchanged from one place to another. But, even in the supposed 14 billion years that those who hold to the big bang believe in, there hasn’t been enough time for light to travel from one side of the universe to the other. So for those who hold to the big bang to argue that biblical creation is wrong because of this “time travel” problem, they are really “shooting themselves in the foot” because their argument is self-refuting!

Although we can’t time travel like Marty McFly, we do know Someone who created everything and is outside of time and even created time, as stated in Genesis 1:1. Since we have the testimony of the Creator God of the universe, which is the written account of the history of the world, we can be confident that the things it says are true. His Word tells us how everything came to be, how sin entered into the world, and how Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross takes away the penalty of that sin. It even tells us of the future glory of timeless heaven, for those who are Christians.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The cry of Obama and others is “tolerance,” and for Christians to “catch up” with the majority that embraces same-sex unions. But, really, Obama and other gay “marriage” supporters aren’t being tolerant. They are being very intolerant of those who dare to disagree with them. This is not real tolerance at all! It’s intolerance and sometimes hatred of anyone who stands on the authority of God’s Word and calls sin what it is. Of course, this is exactly what Christians should expect since we are fighting a spiritual battle:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)

People are intolerant of Christians because “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Christ Himself warned us that we would be hated because of Him:

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:18–19)

So it should come as no surprise to Christians that the world is utterly opposed to and intolerant of Christians, even while they proclaim a message of supposed tolerance.

As believers, we need to be salt and light in a culture that is dying. We live in a very post-Christian nation. America as a whole—as evidenced by our President’s statements—does not base its thinking on God’s Word but on man’s ideas. This has resulted in a nation where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). And this nation desperately needs to hear the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel that changes hearts and minds for now and eternity. I encourage you to be salt and light among your friends, family, coworkers, and even among those you don’t know, pointing them towards Jesus Christ and the hope He offers.

How far will President Obama continue to “move the line” regarding what is morally right and wrong? He denies the origin of marriage in Genesis, but what about clothing? There is a growing movement across this nation of groups of women demanding the right to take their tops off in public because men can take their shirts off. And why should the President not approve of that “liberty”? Would he say that the origin of clothing is found in Genesis, and thus say that such nudity is wrong?

Just like the teaching of marriage is found in Genesis, so is clothing. God gave clothes because of sin (Genesis 3:21). And if the only authority to determine the meaning of marriage is fallible humans like President Obama, then why shouldn’t polygamy also be legalized?* Ultimately, anything goes, and so why shouldn’t people be allow to take their clothes off in public and have multiple spouses?

As we read in the book of Judges, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). It’s an apt verse to describe our increasingly secularized culture as well as the actions of President Obama.

President Obama needs to take heed of the warning God gives concerning those who do not walk in His light, but walk in their own light:

Who among you fears the Lord? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God. Look, all you who kindle a fire, who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled—This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isaiah 50:10–11)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

*Read our article on polygamy and the Bible.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Obama: Gay “Marriage” Over Religious Freedom

In a recent address to the LGBT community, US President Barack Obama made several startling claims that only highlight the continuing animosity and intolerance towards Bible-believing Christians. He said that “Freedom of religion isn't reason enough to deny any American their constitutional rights,” referring, of course, to gay “marriage,” and he added that “it's important to recognize that some parts of the country remain uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and that it will take time for them to catch up to the majority of Americans who support such unions,” according to CBS News.

The President went on to say, “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions . . . . But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” This is the same President who, in 2013, addressed Planned Parenthood, a child-killing machine (i.e., by abortion, which is the murder of children; an estimated 55 million lives have been taken by abortion clinics since Roe v. Wade in 1973), and said “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Frankly, President Obama cannot be talking about the same God of the Bible that I worship! Now, he has been known to selectively quote from the Bible when he gives some of his speeches, but he neglects so much of the Bible. For example, if he quoted Christ in Matthew 19, he would have to tell people that our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught clearly that true marriage was one man and one woman. And if President Obama quoted Romans 1, he would have to admit that homosexual behavior is sinful because of “vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26–28).

So, according to the President of the United States, gay “marriage” is more important than religious freedom for Americans. Now, what the President—and many other leaders who support gay “marriage”—don’t seem to understand (or refuse to care about) is that those who are forced to condone gay “marriage” against their religious beliefs are having their First Amendment constitutional rights denied. If Christians aren’t allowed to act on their beliefs, such as their Bible-based belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, as God’s Word clearly states and as Jesus clearly teaches us, then what kind of religious freedom is that? It’s no freedom at all! In the end, all that happens is Christians giving up their constitutional rights—protected by the First Amendment—as the government tramples on their liberties.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Tells Women What to Do!

In a new [i]Big Think[/i] video, Bill Nye, TV’s “the Science Guy,” states, “You can’t tell somebody what to do . . . ” and then proceeds to tell us all what to do. Later on in the short video defending abortion, he states that he wants to “encourage you to not tell women what to do,” but through the whole video clip he is telling women what to do—that they should abort (murder, really) a baby if they want to.

It appears that Bill Nye, ever since his debate with me at the Creation Museum last year and the enormous viewership it received, is increasingly being asked now to give his opinion on other topics regardless of his qualifications to speak to such issues. Now in this video where Bill Nye is urging people not to stop the work of abortion clinics, he attacks the Bible! He just couldn’t help himself as he has to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” as Romans 1 states such people do, and justify his own rebellion against God. And of course, in the Bill Nye debate over a year ago, I showed clearly that the debate between Bill Nye and me was really a clash of worldviews based on our different starting points—just as the abortion battle is a clash of the same two worldviews. It’s a battle over God’s Word and man’s word—the two ultimate religions that have fueled a battle that has been raging around us since the events of Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve trusted man’s word instead of God’s Word.

In this video, Bill Nye attacks the Bible because his starting point is that man determines his own worldview—that there is no God who owns us. Then using his religion, his starting point that all life is the result of natural processes, and therefore one’s worldview is moral relativism, he proceeds to plead (yes, plead) that women be allowed to abort their babies.

Now Bill Nye also tells us that saying we should not abort (murder) babies is “bad science.” And then he proceeds to discuss the sperm and the egg and what we’ve been able to understand from what is obviously observational science. As he did in the debate, he confuses beliefs with what one can observe. He tries to make out that discussing moral issues (like abortion) is on the same level as observational science that builds our technology. What a load of nonsense. This is why I spent time in the Bill Nye debate explaining the difference between historical science (beliefs) and observational science (based on the repeatable test to build technology, and so on).

In this video, he states to those who oppose abortion, “I understand that you have deeply held beliefs.” Yes, we do! We admit that! We do believe the Bible is the Word of God and that God created us and owns us! We do acknowledge it is God who sets the rules and determines right and wrong! And we do admit that humans are made in God’s image, and murdering one made in God’s image is sin!

But Bill Nye—you too have “deeply held beliefs.” Admit it! You wouldn’t admit it at the debate and you won’t acknowledge it now! You need to admit you have a religion called humanism—that you believe everything happened by natural processes and man determines right and wrong. You need to admit that your “deeply held beliefs” determine your worldview which is why you are telling women what to do—they should abort (murder) a baby if they want to!

Bill, like all those who have rebelled against their Creator, I urge you:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

You can watch the Nye/Ham debate on YouTube, own a copy of the debate on DVD, or you could get the boxed set.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is Polygamy Next?

For years I’ve been saying that once you open the door to redefine marriage, where do you stop? Well, that’s already starting to happen since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision to legalize gay “marriage” in June. After all, if “love wins,” as gay “marriage” activists say, then by this line of thinking why shouldn’t “love win” in cases of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia? As soon as you get rid of an absolute standard—God’s Word—anything and everything goes with regard to marriage. It’s just like Scripture says, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

Well, the Browns, a polygamous family made popular by the reality TV show Sister Wives, says the SCOTUS ruling “shows that laws restricting consensual adult relationships are outdated, even if certain unions are unpopular.” Now, the Browns are currently in court “defending a legal victory they won in 2013, when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah’s law banning polygamy.” The Browns are not seeking to have polygamy legalized, but just to uphold this court ruling that would allow them all to live together without fear of arrest. But court cases like this raise the question of when a polygamous family will decide to fight for the legalization of polygamy. With the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry since the new philosophy in our culture is “as long as they love one another”? Again, without an absolute authority you can’t call anything right or wrong!

But polygamy—and other perversions of marriage—are wrong, and we as Christians can say so because we have the authoritative Word from the Creator of marriage. You see, Genesis describes the creation of marriage. It is not something that evolved or that society or a government invented. It’s an institution created by God,

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:27–28)

Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:

This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22–24)

In Matthew 19, Jesus quotes from Genesis 2 (one flesh) as the basis for marriage being a male and female—one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–7).

Some erroneously believe that the Bible endorses polygamy because of clear occurrences of it in the Old Testament. But the cases mentioned in detail actually point to the sinfulness of mankind and negative consequences of such situations. God created marriage, and He designed it for one man and one woman for life. Because we have the absolute standard of God’s Word, we can authoritatively declare certain behaviors and practices to be wrong because our Creator says that they are wrong. As Christians, we need to boldly stand on the authority of God’s Word and defend biblical marriage as we act as salt and light in a dying world. You can also read this article on the Answers in Genesis website about whether the Bible condones polygamy.

Those who reject God’s Word as the absolute authority have to live inconsistently in this world. If there is no absolute authority, then who draws the lines in regard to moral issues—and why? Who sets and standards and why? Ultimately, the culture will become like that described in the book of Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye to Feature in Upcoming Religious Movie

I recently blogged about Bill Nye’s upcoming book Unstoppable. Well, in addition to his new book, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” is also reportedly going to be featured in a documentary about his life and work. One website describes the documentary as “a film for science. A film for the cosmos. The full access, exclusive film about Bill Nye.” Really it should be called “a film for the religion of naturalism. A film to promote worship of the cosmos. An exclusive film about the very religious Bill Nye.” Yes, it will be a religious film!

The documentary, which was trying to raise $650,000 on Kickstarter, has raised far more than the goal. Now, Kickstarter campaigns may give rewards out to those who back a project, with better rewards for those who donate more. I found it humorous how one of the rewards—for those who gave $20 or more towards this project—is “BILL'S HAND WRITTEN NOTES FROM THE 'HAMM [sic] ON NYE DEBATE’ Own a special piece of history with a PDF of Bill's handwritten notes from the epic debate in Kentucky with creationist Ken Hamm [sic].” So they will give you Bill Nye’s notes from our 2014 debate if you donate, but I have not seen Nye actively directing people to the free YouTube video of the unedited debate (with the exception of placing it in the video section of his billnye.com website) or the DVD (which he has the rights to use). Maybe he doesn’t want people to actually watch the debate because then they will be exposed to the truth of creation and the gospel of Jesus Christ! And I’m sure Bill doesn’t want people to watch and understand the word science, and the difference between historical science (e.g., Bill’s beliefs about origins based on the religion of naturalism) and observational science, which builds the incredible technology we have today. If you haven’t viewed the debate video already, then I encourage you to watch it at this link. Note that we are not afraid or ashamed in any way to encourage everyone to watch the video of the debate. I challenge Bill Nye to tell people to do the same—or even sell the DVD of the debate as we do and keep the proceeds.

Now, we don’t know what information will be included in the upcoming documentary about Bill Nye, but it’s likely that the film will be full of evolutionary teaching—all part of the religion of naturalism (atheism). As Christians, we need to be equipped to answer the questions that will inevitably arise from those who view the documentary. And we can use this coming documentary as a way of opening the door for conversation about the nature of science, creation/evolution, the age of the Earth, biblical authority, and, of course, the gospel. I encourage you, if you haven’t already, to order a copy of the in-depth look at the debate, Inside the Nye/Ham Debate, which I coauthored with my son-in-law Bodie Hodge. This book is an excellent resource to help you engage with the common objections to biblical creation and common arguments for evolutionary ideas. And I’m sure that the same old empty arguments Bill Nye brought up in the debate will be featured in the movie.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye is Releasing a New Religious Book

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” has a book releasing soon called Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World, and I wonder if my name is mentioned in the book somewhere as one of those supposed “anti-science, climate change deniers” he talks about. I just have to shake my head. Really, I think the title of the book should be, It’s Stoppable: The Harnessing of the Religion of Naturalism That’s Changing the World. The more you read what Bill Nye is saying, the more you should realize he is on a mission to brainwash generations of kids in the religion of naturalism—which in reality is atheism.

While his last book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, focused on molecules-to-man evolution (you can read our review of this book), this upcoming release focuses on the topic of climate change. The publisher’s description reads,

With a scientist's thirst for knowledge and an engineer's vision of what can be, Bill Nye sees today's environmental issues not as insurmountable, depressing problems but as chances for our society to rise to the challenge and create a cleaner, healthier, smarter world. We need not accept that transportation consumes half our energy, and that two-thirds of the energy you put into your car is immediately thrown away out the tailpipe. We need not accept that dangerous emissions are the price we must pay for a vibrant economy and a comfortable life. Above all, we need not accept that we will leave our children a planet that is dirty, overheated, and depleted of resources. As Bill shares his vision, he debunks some of the most persistent myths and misunderstandings about global warming.

Based on the publisher’s description, it seems pretty obvious what this book will be about. Bill Nye has previously made alarming claims about climate change and the coming disastrous effects of it, and likely this book will perpetuate those alarmist ideas. Now, Nye has often wrongly claimed that creationists don’t believe in climate change, but we do—climates change. Anyone can see and experience that. But what you believe about the nature and severity of climate change and how it happens is determined by your worldview. If you start with man’s idea that climates have existed for millions of years and have remained stable since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, then a change in the climate is cause for concern and is likely man-made. But since we start with the true history provided in God’s Word we get an entirely different view of climate change.

Originally, the climate was created perfect, but sin changed everything (Genesis 3), and we no longer have a perfect climate. During the global Flood of Noah’s day about 4,350 years ago the climate was radically changed when the surface of the Earth was reshaped by the Flood. The Flood was followed by an Ice Age, which further changed our climate, and climates have gone up and down since. Fluctuations can happen quite quickly and are not cause for grave concern in regard to man’s supposed impact as Bill Nye claims. So when you start with God’s Word, you have an entirely different worldview through which to view climate change and therefore you reach entirely different conclusions about the nature and severity of it. It is true that Bill Nye’s religion of evolutionary naturalism causes him to wrongly interpret climate change. So, in essence, Bill Nye’s new book is indeed a religious book!

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Something is wrong. The stories usually involve a close friend or family member who once attended church faithfully but left. In many cases, these once-active churchgoers adopt an openly secular worldview and lifestyle, rejecting all semblance of Christian belief and values. Most churches, it seems, are full of Christian parents, Sunday school teachers, and pastors who tell similar heartrending stories. They just can’t believe what’s happening.

No church is safe. Next time you attend a morning service, look around you. Who’s next? One of the chattering young people, the teens huddled in the corner, the single adults busily pursuing their careers? They may seem happy and engaged, but is Christ really at the center of their hearts and lives?

You can’t just assume God’s Word rules everything they think and do. If you could ask a few probing questions—about creation, abortion, marriage, and the exclusivity of Christ’s salvation—you might be surprised by their answers. They’re on a dangerous path. Six out of ten may eventually leave church. Many of the rest—like Matthew Vines who now promotes homosexual “marriage” in churches—may stay but not believe like you do!

...

I believe this is a huge warning sign to the church. When a generation no longer builds its worldview on the foundation of the absolute authority of God’s Word, the new generation begins to question everything it says, including its morality. Then they do what is “right” in their own eyes (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Eventually we reach a tipping point, a twisted perspective where, like Israel, we “"call evil good, and good evil"” (Isaiah 5:20).

The ARG study asked where these younger Christians believe the Bible has errors. The most common answer was the age of the earth (37%)! This group of Christians also believe science has disproved the book of Genesis and that the Flood did not occur during Noah’s day. In other words, origins was a major issue among those who believe the Bible has errors.

Doubting Genesis has had horrendous consequences. It should come as no surprise that as generations are trained to disbelieve the Bible’s account of origins, they also increasingly doubt the rest of the Bible. That’s a part of the greater Satanic strategy that had its origin in the Garden of Eden. All biblical doctrines (including marriage) are founded (directly or indirectly) in the history found in Genesis 1–11. We see the direct result of this doubt and compromise reflected in the increasing acceptance of same-sex “marriage,” abortion, and so on.

As the newest ARG research reveals, at the heart of what’s wrong with our churches is a failure to accept and teach clearly what the Bible reveals about the age of the earth. It is the big “elephant in the room” that most Christian leaders refuse to acknowledge. Or worse, they endorse compromise by accepting the evolutionary idea of millions of years.

This illustrates that there is considerable biblical illiteracy among the twentysomethings, and significant compromise among church leaders. In most cases, the twentysomethings said their high school teachers convinced them not to trust the Bible! Many of them said they wished someone had prepared them better, but no one did.

Not only is this a warning to parents about where they send their children for education, but it is a warning to church leaders and parents about the importance of training the coming generations to be able to defend the Christian faith and strengthen their belief in God’s Word.

One of the key reasons kids don’t embrace their parents’ and church’s faith in adulthood is because they never learned how to “own” their own faith. They never asked tough questions about their faith in a safe environment. Perhaps they were raised in a church or home where questions and doubts were discouraged. Whatever the case, they never worked through some of these difficult issues while they were young; therefore they were never challenged with what they believe or why they believe it.

Every generation has the same decision to make: Will I serve the God of the Bible or a false god? Every newborn must be taught the truth from scratch, or that soul could be completely lost.

I believe the Christian faith is very much like a relay race. One generation carries the responsibility to pass on the faith to the next. As we have seen from the new ARG research, the church is currently failing this critical task in many areas.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

On the discovery of fifteen partial skeletons of a new species of hominid in South Africa.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who frequently writes articles for Answers in Genesis, is working on a full-length article on this discovery, so keep checking the website to read that. But we can say with confidence that this discovery changes nothing about our understanding of human history. You see, the only eyewitness account of human origins is the one provided by God our Creator in the Bible’s book of Genesis. No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and substituted their own fallible opinions in its place.

We know from God’s Word that “nature” did not experiment “with how to evolve humans.” God told us He created two humans as well as all the kinds of land animals—and that includes apes—on the same day. That means that there could be no evolution involved. Whatever species these bones represent—and we will be publishing a more complete report on the discovery and the claims being made about it soon—we know that they cannot be any sort of intermediate between apes and humans. The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in between. But all humans—even varieties of humans that we no longer have with us—were all descended from the first two people God made. So are we. And all apes, even extinct varieties, are all descendants of the kinds of apes God made in the beginning. Scientific observation reveals that all living things, including apes and humans, only vary and reproduce within their created kinds, never evolving into new kinds. This scientific observation affirms what God decreed in the beginning, as recorded in Genesis 1, that all would reproduce after their kinds.

Show post

Prof.Stuart Burgess #fundie answersingenesis.org

When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.
Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

The Bible is scientifically correct when it states that divine supernatural power is required to create the universe (Genesis 1:1) and life (Genesis 2:7) and different kinds of creatures (Genesis 1:24). The Bible is also scientifically accurate that divine supernatural power is required to uphold all things (Colossians 1:17). Rather than being accused of superstition, the Bible should be commended for correctly identifying the areas of origins where a supernatural Creator is necessary.
Biblical Creation Is Not Anti-Science

Creationists are sometimes accused of ignoring scientific evidence and being anti-science. But belief in God in no way diminishes zeal for how life works. The great pioneer scientists of the 17th to 20th centuries were inspired by their belief in God. Likewise, modern-day scientists who are biblical creationists find their belief in a purposeful universe to be a help in their work.

Biblical creationists are always eager to learn from real scientific discoveries in every area of science. I personally have designed rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency and NASA using the latest scientific knowledge in physics and engineering. I have a patent on a special gearbox that was used on the world’s largest civilian spacecraft and have been awarded three national prizes for the development of technology for spacecraft.

The only “science” that creationists do not use is the speculative science of evolution that has nothing to do with useful operational science. Evolutionary ideas like “monkey-to-man charts” that supposedly chart human evolution are based on pure speculation and not useful to science and technology in any way.
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations

Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always “evolution did it” or “natural selection did it” without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.

This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2

The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.

When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, “Miss, you keep saying ‘evolution did it,’ but you never actually explain how evolution did it.” The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.

Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin’s finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science

Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.

Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was “junk” DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.

A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution’s Knowledge

When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand

I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a “god of the gaps.” He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a “magic wand.” He said that he has noticed how even the experts say “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying “evolution did it.”
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution

Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews

Biblical creation versus evolution is not “faith versus science,” but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator

In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say “God did it” for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase “God did it” is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.

If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin’s theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.

Show post

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, NASA released the first close images of Pluto recently taken by the New Horizons space probe. What the photos revealed was a shock to conventional uniformitarian scientists who believe in a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system. Over the past half century, planetary scientists have become accustomed to finding many impact craters on the surfaces of bodies in the solar system. However, from the preliminary photos of Pluto’s surface, these scientists have found far fewer craters than they expected. Earlier wide-field views of half of Pluto’s surface seem to indicate a few craters, but the first close-up region examined appeared to have no craters.

Craters appear to be the results of collisions with smaller bodies. Most scientists think that the solar system formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, so they interpret craters in terms of their accumulation during that time. Supposedly, many of the impacts were from leftover material that did not form into planets. If true, then the rate at which craters formed was much greater in the early solar system than it is today. Some surfaces, such as Earth’s and Jupiter’s satellite Io, have relatively few craters. Planetary scientists explain this by geological processes that remove or cover craters. On Earth, the main geological processes responsible for this are believed to be the sedimentation and igneous activity accompanying plate tectonics, and weathering and erosion. On Io, the principle mechanism of crater removal is volcanism—Io has many active volcanoes that change the surface regularly. Some surfaces of solar system bodies, such as Earth’s moon, have regions of high crater density and regions of low crater density. This is explained by volcanism that affected parts of them, such as on our moon, and not others.

Planetary scientists use crater density to judge the relative ages of various surfaces and regions. The lunar maria (pronounced MAR-ee-uh) appear to be volcanic plains and have far fewer craters on them than on the heavily cratered lunar highlands. Presumably, the volcanism and related processes that formed the lunar maria covered over many of the craters originally there. Hence, the maria are younger than the lunar highlands.

Similarly, the craterless surface of Io is very young, as evidenced by the ongoing volcanism that we have witnessed occurring on its surface. Europa, another large satellite of Jupiter, only has a few craters, suggesting that its surface has been reworked, though not as recently as Io’s. The two other large satellites of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto, have increasing crater densities, suggesting still older surfaces, but surfaces that have been reworked to some degree. The densities of craters on the surfaces of these four large satellites of Jupiter increase with distance from the planet, as do the inferred ages of their surfaces. This disparity is explained in terms of tidal flexing of Jupiter’s strong gravity that heats those satellites’ interiors to permit volcanic activity. The tidal heating decreases with distance from Jupiter.

With the exception of Io, every surface on solar system bodies that we had examined, planets, their satellites, asteroids, and even comets, appear to have impact craters, suggesting to most planetary scientists that they all have great age. This is why the lack of craters on Pluto is such a shock. Being far from the sun, Pluto ought to be very cold and hence not have experienced recent volcanism. Any primordial heat would have long ago dissipated, if the solar system were 4.5 billion years old. The density of Pluto is very small, 2.0 gm/cc, which is consistent with a roughly half-and-half rock/ice composition. This density will not allow for long-lived radioactive elements, which allegedly are the source of Earth’s internal heat to provide for the continuous geological activity during Earth’s supposed 4.5-billion-year history. Nor is Pluto near any other large bodies that could raise tides within Pluto to heat its interior and thus drive surface geological activity as supposedly is the case with Jupiter’s large satellites. Hence, there ought not to be any significant geological activity sufficient to remove craters on Pluto’s surface.

Compounding this problem for a 4.5-billion-year age for the solar system is the fact that Pluto is located in a particularly crowded part of the solar system. Pluto orbits the sun in a region with many other large objects that are too small to be planets and are also orbiting the sun. Presumably, thus far we have found only the larger members of this second asteroid belt, the first belt being mainly between the orbits of the planets Mars and Jupiter. We would expect that for each of these bodies in this second asteroid belt there would be many more much smaller bodies. Therefore, Pluto ought to be undergoing impacts today at a higher rate than most other objects in other portions of the solar system.

Planetary scientists who are committed to belief in a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system are at a complete loss to explain the lack of craters on Pluto. But the situation is even bleaker for them. Pluto has a tenuous nitrogen atmosphere. This nitrogen is leaking away from Pluto’s atmosphere, so it must be continually replaced. One can claim that the unknown mechanism driving the geological activity on Pluto also is bringing nitrogen from Pluto’s interior to the surface where it is outgassed. But Pluto is a small body, and it has only a finite amount of nitrogen. It is possible that after billions of years that all of its nitrogen should have been depleted long ago.

There are mountains on Pluto’s surface that are 11,000 ft (3,300 m) high. The rock/ice composition of Pluto probably could support such a tall structure with Pluto’s modest gravity if Pluto’s interior is very cold. However, if Pluto is as warm and geologically active as inferred, then the rock/ice structure of Pluto could not support such mountains for long. Therefore, these mountains must be very young. All of these considerations demonstrate that Pluto is a very young object, far younger than the 4.5 billion years that most scientists assume.

Charon, Pluto’s largest satellite, offered stunning news too. Charon appears to have a few craters, but far fewer than expected. Its surface also is gashed by a large chasm, suggesting recent or ongoing geological activity. This, too, was unexpected in a solar system that is 4.5 billion years old.

We may yet find a few craters on Pluto’s surface, but those would be inconsequential to the conclusions that we can draw. It is very clear that Pluto is young, far younger than the billions of years generally assumed. While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists, this is something that we might expect if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible indicates. The preliminary results from the New Horizons space probe are good news indeed for the recent creation model.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye, TV's “The Science Guy,” often speaks out about climate change, something he believes is cause for much alarm. Well, he tackled the topic again in a recent video that uses “emoji” to explain climate change as part of the General Electric Emoji Science campaign. Now, late last year he did a video which attempted to teach evolution using emojis. You can read my thoughts about that video here.

In this video on climate change Bill Nye states that “climate change is a real deal.” I agree with Mr. Nye—climate change is real. Few people would deny that climates do indeed change, since changing climates are something we can observe in the world around us. For example, beginning in medieval times and ending by about 1850 there was a period of global cooling called the “Little Ice Age.” Since then, temperatures have been slowly climbing back up. So climates do change. But, while we might agree that climate change is real, Mr. Nye and I would radically disagree on the severity and alarming nature of climate change because we have completely different starting points.

You see, what you believe about the past (historical science) determines how you interpret the observational evidence. Since Bill Nye believes the earth is billions of years old, he likely assumes (as most evolutionists do) that the climate has been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last supposed glacial period. Since our climate is now changing, many secularists assume that modern man must be the primary cause and, if this is true, then this certainly is cause for alarm. But as Christians we start with a completely different account of Earth’s history—the history recorded in God’s Word. According to God’s Word, the earth is only around 6,000 years old. But the climate was radically changed about 4,350 years ago when the earth was catastrophically reshaped by the global Flood of Noah’s day. This Flood even caused an Ice Age, which covered 30% of Earth’s surface with ice and snow. This transitional period then eased out to give way to the climate we now have today. So we should expect minor variations in our climate, and these changes are not necessarily man-made. So, unlike most evolutionists, we are not alarmed by reports of changing climates.

Now, in his video Bill Nye made reference to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since the mid-eighteenth century. Many climate change alarmists will point to this rise in CO2 as evidence of dramatic man-made climate change. But is CO2 really the cause of climate change and global warming? Well, Dr. Alan White, an organic chemist with a PhD from Harvard University, writes in The New Answers Book 4,

We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases act as a blanket over the earth. When sunlight heats the earth’s surface, the warm earth radiates some of that heat into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases slow the escape of that radiated heat. You have been led to believe that the most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. It is not. Water vapor and clouds are actually responsible for about 80 to 90 percent of the total greenhouse effect. That’s right, at least 80 percent. That is why clear mornings are usually much colder than cloudy mornings. On clear mornings, we do not have that blanket of clouds to hold in the heat. The percentage of the greenhouse effect attributable to CO2 is believed to be as high as 20 percent by some and as low as 4 percent by others. Almost everyone agrees that the percent of CO2 that is man-made is only about 4 percent of total CO2. Therefore, the greenhouse effect caused by man-made CO2 is less than 1 percent of the total and may be a small fraction of 1 percent.

Despite this, many scientists today claim that the rise in man-made CO2 is the major cause of the rise in global temperatures over the past century. Just because global temperature and CO2 concentrations have risen over the past several decades does not mean that one caused the other . . . . The correlation between the CO2 concentration and global temperature is not strong, particularly between 1900 and 1950 . . . [and] man-made CO2 was not high during the Medieval Warming Period. These data are not convincing.

So should we really be alarmed about rising carbon dioxide levels destroying our climate? Well, the observational data is certainly not convincing that we should be greatly concerned.

Bill Nye then mentioned some possible ways to stop supposed man-made climate change by suggesting we need to engineer new ways to distribute and store renewable energy from the sun and wind. Now, should Christians be against renewable energy? Of course not! We have been placed as stewards of the earth, and so we need to care for what God has entrusted to us. This means that Christians should be concerned about the environment and take steps to ensure that we are good stewards of what we have been given.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Show post

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Huffington Post published this picture (see below) of the White House lit up with the colors of the rainbow, quoting this statement from the White House:

“Tonight, the White House was lit to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to progress and equality, here in America and around the world,” the White House said in a statement. “The pride colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community, and tonight, these colors celebrate a new chapter in the history of American civil rights.”

image

Well, I do have a message for President Obama and five members of the US Supreme Court:

You did not invent marriage. God did.

Marriage was instituted by God when He created man male and female—Adam and Eve. In fact, Jesus Christ the God-man quoted from Genesis when He taught that the meaning of marriage is based on the history in Genesis (see Matthew 19:4-6)—that God made the first marriage with one male and one female and told them to multiply and fill the earth.

The president and the Supreme Court need to repent and return to the One who is in authority over them—the One who is the absolute authority, the Creator God who also put them in positions of authority (Daniel 4:3, 17, 37). He is the Creator God against whom these Washington leaders have rebelled as members of Adam’s race—the Creator God who stepped into history to pay the penalty for our sins so they can be reconciled to their God. With the rebellious person, God is “patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Yes, the Supreme Court and the president need to repent of their mocking the first and most fundamental of human institutions that God ordained in Scripture: the family that God ordained with one man and one woman in marriage.

God Invented the Rainbow

The president did not invent the rainbow; God invented it, and He put the rainbow in the sky as a special reminder related to Noah’s Flood. God had sent the global Flood in Noah’s time as a judgment because of man’s wickedness in rebelling against the Creator. After the Flood had subsided, we read the following in Genesis:

Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (Genesis 9:8–17)

Yes, the rainbow was set up by God as a sign to remind us that there will never again be a global Flood as a judgment. But one day there will be another global judgment—the final judgment—and it will be by fire:

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.

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. 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.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:7–13)

The rainbow should actually remind us of four things:

1.God judged the wickedness of man at the time of Noah—and the evidence of that judgment is seen over the whole earth. Most of the fossil record is the graveyard of the global Flood of Noah’s day.

2.God had Noah build an Ark of salvation and it had one door. Noah and his family went through this door into the Ark to be saved. Jesus said, “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved” (John 10:9). Noah’s Ark is a picture of Jesus, of salvation. In judgment, God provides salvation as a gift for those who will receive it.

3.As stated above, there will never be another global Flood as a judgment, but there is another judgment coming: when God will judge with fire and make a New Heavens and Earth.

4.God has provided an Ark of salvation for those who will receive it so we can spend eternity with our Creator and not suffer the consequences of our sin of rebellion by being cast into hell for eternity. Just as there was one door on the Ark, there is only one door by which we can go to heaven:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

Yes, we need to take back the rainbow and worship the One who invented the rainbow, and every time we see it be reminded of its true message.

Show post

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

What causes the changes in the earth’s rotation? There are several causes. First, random events such as earthquakes can shuffle the earth’s material and change the earth’s moment of inertia. When the earth’s moment of inertia changes, conservation of angular momentum requires that the rotation rate must change as well. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that caused the large tsunami shrunk the earth slightly and shortened the earth’s rotation by about 2.7 millionths of a second. Second, annual events such as seasonal growing and melting glaciers and ice caps change the earth’s moment of inertia. Third, there is a long-term periodic trend caused by astronomical bodies.

Finally, there is a long-term secular (non-periodic) slowing in the earth’s rotation caused by the tidal interaction of the earth and moon. As the earth slows its rotation, the moon spirals away from the earth. Therefore, in the past the earth spun more rapidly and the moon was much closer to the earth. Direct computation shows that the earth and moon would have been in contact about 1.3 billion years ago. Even a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that tides would have been a mile high. No one—including those who believe that the earth is far older than a billion years—thinks that tides were ever that high or that the moon and the earth touched a little more than a billion years ago.

However, since the earth and moon are only thousands of years old as the Bible clearly indicates, the long-term change in the earth-moon system is no problem. Indeed, what we see in the interaction between the earth and moon offers powerful evidence that the earth and moon are young.

Show post

Monty White and Paul S. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

In the last few years, another compromise of biblical truth has emerged, actually from within what might be termed the ‘Young Earth Creation’ movement. This compromise is the 'Recolonisation Theory.'

It is the sad duty of AiG to point out where otherwise conservative evangelicals have compromised on the truth of Scripture beginning with Genesis. It is all too common for evangelicals to be bemused by the claims of secular, evolutionary science, and to want to re-interpret Genesis to ‘fit in’ with these claims.

In the last few years, another compromise of biblical truth has emerged, actually from within what might be termed the ‘Young Earth Creation’ movement. Advocates of this new compromise, known sometimes as the ‘Recolonisation Theory’ and sometimes as the European Flood Model, claim to hold to a biblical creationist position. The ‘moderate’ Recolonisers, defined below, stretch the age of the earth very little, or not at all, whereas the ‘strong’ Recolonisers stretch their age for the earth to as much as 18,000 years. Both views, however, start with science rather than Scripture and therefore base their interpretation of Scripture on science, rather than the other way round.

The Recolonisers believe that the fossil record is to be understood more or less in the order in which evolutionary geologists picture it, although they dispute all the timescales. They see this fossil record as indicative of life recolonising the world after the devastation caused by the Flood of Noah’s time. They assume that the Flood itself is responsible for none of the fossil record, believing that organisms killed by the Flood have been totally obliterated, and therefore are not visible in the fossil record.

This Recolonisation after the Flood often requires the Recolonisers to lengthen the age of the earth by a few thousand years

There appears to be two distinct groups of Recolonisers. The ‘moderate’ group’s views are expounded at http://www.recolonisation.org.uk, and whereas not all believe in expanding the biblical genealogies,4 others would typically expand the genealogies to span a time of about 12,000 years, to allow stability by the time of Abraham (about 2,000 BC)—after, in their view, a time of huge post-Flood geological activity. Typical papers expounding their geology are by Garton5 Tyler6 and Johnstone.7 It must be emphasised that many of this ‘moderate’ group of Recolonisers are not compromising Scripture in their interpretation of the chronogenealogies, or the age of the Earth. It is the next group that causes us great concern. Indeed, the ‘strong’ Recolonisation view, described below, should cause equal concern to the ‘moderate’ wing.

This second group of ‘strong’ Recolonisers, which includes Stephen Robinson and Anthony Bush, goes further and pushes the Flood into a much more distant past. Bush is the owner of the wonderful Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm (www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk), a unique UK tourist venture which the authors still recommend for people to visit, despite our reserve for the one small display about Recolonisation

Moreover, even the views of those Recolonisers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. For example, their model of continental submersion after the Flood is problematic. Because the Recolonisers accept the geological column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonisers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. It is such exegetical weaknesses that led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment: ‘Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.’16

Show post

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Ken Ham's son-in-law responds to Mr. C)

Dear Mr. C,

Thank you for commenting about the Nye Ham debate. Please see my comments below.

This is one proof you lost the debate.

But Mr. Ham didn’t lose the debate (and the gospel was spread to millions of people). Here is the simple reason why: Mr. Nye never addressed the debate topic, so how could someone win the debate if they never addressed the topic?

The debate topic was the following: “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era?”

Mr. Nye immediately changed the topic to address something else: “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?”

What few realize is that in doing so, Mr. Nye also misrepresented Mr. Ham’s position by claiming Mr. Ham’s model was that natural law changed at the Flood, that Mr. Ham’s model was opposed to science, that Noah’s Ark was like a zoo, that Noah’s Ark held at least 14,000 animals but was supposed to have millions of species, the Bible (specifically Genesis) was written by men only (no God), we oppose scientific predictions, and the list continues. The point is that this false model was a straw man that Mr. Nye set up. In other words, he changed what the creation model really was and attacked a false version of it in the debate, and so he never really addressed the debate topic. And this was the case throughout the debate.

you couldn’t answer nye on your feet,

A few things here. First, with the debate format and time limits, you can’t answer everything. Mr. Nye used the “skeptical method” by the way, which is to throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into thinking he won.

The reason for doing this is simple. Many watching the debate will notice that Mr. Ham didn’t answer a particular question, and so it is assumed then that he can’t answer the question, hence viewers may misperceive that someone loses the debate on that account. But it works both ways: neither debater can answer everything they were presented with even in typical debate, let alone when one uses the skeptical method.

Mr. Nye admitted to using this method after the debate. Mr. Nye says the following of a misrepresentation of biblical creationist and debater Dr. Duane Gish:

He was infamous for jumping from one topic to another, introducing one spurious or specious fact or line of reasoning after another. A scientist debating Gish often got bogged down in details and, by all accounts, came across looking like the loser. It quickly occurred to me that I could do the same thing. . . . I did my best to slam Ken Ham with a great many scientific and common sense arguments. I believed he wouldn’t have the time or the focus to address many of them.1

Second, not answering something is not the same as losing a debate. Jesus never answered certain things at his trial, and even though they had Him put to death on the Cross, Christ won (Acts 8:32).

Third, Mr. Nye failed to answer the most basic tenets of debate from his worldview, such as why he thinks logic, reasoning, morality, truth, and knowledge exist in his materialistic worldview. For Mr. Nye to even argue against the biblical position would be to give up his worldview (which cannot account for the existence of logic and reason) and borrow from the truth of God’s Word. In other words, for him to even try to make a case meant he lost the debate! He never answered this after being asked repeatedly to do so.

[...]

more and more people are realizing just how intellectually bankrupt AiG is

Yet we are increasing in support each year. This is mere hand waving. Our mission is to proclaim the absolute authority of God Word. Why would any Christian think this is bankrupt?

—in fact, some people i know, fellow old earth creationists, are now dialoguing with a woman who wrote a book defending YEC [young earth creation]—using mostly AiG materials—and, in light of criticisms of atheists, has now become an atheist.

And I used to hold to some old-earth ideas promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, but because I couldn’t hold to geological and astronomical evolution in light of God’s Word or to the idea that the order of creation was different, that the old-earth position was not tenable.

The issue was God vs. man’s ideas. The hope would be that this woman would realize that atheists can be wrong but God cannot be.

as long as ministries like AiG endure, we'll see more and more stories like this;

As long as ministries like RTB exist that mix Christianity with secular humanistic religious ideas like the supposed big bang and millions of years in Genesis, then there will always be a need to help people get back to the authority of God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

especially among young people—once they realize they've been lied to by YEC ministries, they almost inevitably reject the christian faith.

Stats from America’s Research Group show the exact opposite. It was hypocritical Christian leaders who taught things like an old earth, when the kids can read Genesis and not get millions of years out of it, that led to the majority of kids walking away. Please read Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer for more about why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church by the time they reach college.

By the way, what lies do you claim we teach?

my prediction is that, within 50 yrs AiG will either become nonexistent or so irrelevant that is practically doesn't exist, or that it will morph into an old earth creationist ministry!

Only the Lord knows. We ask that people pray to keep the ministry of Answers in Genesis a solid biblical authority ministry for years to come. But your prophecy is marked (consider Deuteronomy 13).

for those of you questioning your faith after watching ken ham lose to bill nye,

First, Mr. Nye didn’t win because he never addressed the debate topic. For those deceived into thinking that Mr. Nye won even though he never addressed the debate topic, we invite you to read the Bible (you can get an overview with Begin) and realize that God is never wrong, but people can be. It is a matter of faith in either fallible, imperfect men about the past or a perfect, infallible God.

Meanwhile, we’ve been praising the Lord for the many testimonies of people whose faith has been strengthened after watching the debate.

i encourage you to log onto [the Reasons to Believe website] for real answers to science-faith issues!

For those reading, Reasons to Believe believes that the secular interpretations of nature are equal to Scripture. Often times, they are used to supersede the plain reading of the Bible, particularly in Genesis in favor of the secular world’s ideas like the big bang.

The president of RTB, Dr. Hugh Ross, has made the claim in his book Creation and Time that nature is likened unto the 67th book of the Bible and should be trusted as such.2 He has reiterated this. If you read the Charisma article by Andy Butcher, “He Sees God in the Stars” (June 2003), you’ll find that Ross still agrees with this principle of adding to Scripture. The principle can even be found in his more recent book A Matter of Days.

RTB also agrees with astronomical evolution (big bang) and geological evolution (millions of years), which are tenets of the religion of humanism. They also believe the Flood of Noah’s Day was local and not a global, world-covering event (see, for example, Genesis 7:19–20).

We want to encourage RTB to get back to the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. When we read the pages of Scripture, the whole creation is corrupted due to sin (e.g., Romans 8:22), the ground has been cursed (Genesis 3:17), the Curse has not been removed yet (Revelation 22:3), and our fallen and sinful natures often err when trying to properly understand this sin-cursed and broken world.

So why treat nature on par with the 66 books of the Bible? Instead, the Bible should be used to supersede our fallible interpretations of nature, particularly the past.

GOD bless!

Blessing in Christ,

Bodie

Footnotes

1.Bill Nye, “Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate,” Skeptical Inquirer 38, no. 3, “http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

2.Colorado Springs: Navpress 1994, 56.