Part of the evolutionist's religion is that energy from the Sun -- acting on a primeval soup millions of years ago -- caused the first life forms to emerge. Thus they believe that the Sun really gave birth to living things. They're really giving glory to the Sun's energy for life. Down through the ages, culture after culture has worshipped the Sun. If you recall, the Israelites were warned not to worship the Sun as did the pagan nations around them.
We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
Now gender distinction for humans is so important that in the very first chapter of the Bible, which is foundational to the whole Bible, God emphasizes this gender distinction:
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)
Jesus, the Son of God, our Creator, as the God-man, made this emphatic statement:
But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)
And again in Matthew 19:4, Jesus, in explaining the meaning of marriage, emphasized the following:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female . . . ? (Matthew 19:4)
And I love how He stated, “have you not read—?” I believe we could paraphrase this verse as, “Haven’t you people read the book of Genesis, that when I created humans, that I made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4)
God has clearly revealed to us in His Word that gender is not something we can choose to discard. When God created mankind, He made them male and female (Genesis 1:27). It’s only concerning our spiritual state in Christ where there is no male or female distinction, as both are equally made in God’s image and equally valuable in His sight (Galatians 3:28).
Transcription:
“The opposable thumb is an amazing product of millions of years of evolu…”—CLICK! Change the channel!
Thank you God… for the gift of the opposable thumb!
Transcript:
Which one are you going to trust?
Holy Bible? “It is written” Matt. 4:4
Or Evolution BELIEF? “It is written and rewritten and rewritten and Rewritten and…”
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road).
[Point of fact: 34% of the world drives on the left.]
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.
(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.
A dozen seashell necklaces (or perhaps bracelets) were discovered in a cave in Morocco, North Africa. The discovery surprised archaeologists who dated the ornamental jewelry at 82,000 years old but previously believed that humans had not developed such art until around 50,000 years ago.
Dating such discoveries has led some Christians to wonder when God created humans. Many “progressive creationists” have gradually pushed their range of dates back: 10,000–25,000 years, then 10,000–35,000, up to 60,000, and sometimes up to 100,000 years.
A clear reading of Genesis, on the other hand, shows that mankind was created about 6,000 years ago, but all vestiges of the earliest cultures were destroyed during the Flood. These artifacts, found in post-Flood geologic formations, must be less than 4,500 years old.
The dating methods of secular archaeologists are based on incorrect assumptions, and the key to correct dates is the infallible Word of God.
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.”
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.
[This is an older article which was recently posted on AiG's Facebook page]
Here’s something you might find hard to accept: In the U.S. culture we are racially programmed, particularly in regard to the skin color issue. Because of our culture’s racist roots, because of the way the world thinks, because of the influence of Darwinian thinking, we have been programmed to look at the exterior rather than the interior of a person, and to make broad judgments based on what we see. Had you not been programmed that way in this culture, you wouldn’t see the differences as you do. Different cultures are programmed in different ways. Our biases and prejudice show themselves in different ways, but in every case it is the world and our sinfulness (rather than science and the Bible) that drives our personal racism.
I realize those are very strong words. You might not even agree with me. But the fact is, it’s true. We just go through our days making all sorts of assumptions and judgment calls based on outward appearances of skin tone, facial features, size, height, etc. It’s very hard to see through the programming because it seems to be such a natural part of the way we think. No one likes to admit it, but the consequences are too serious to ignore. We’ve been programmed, and that programming needs to be changed.
This is no surprise to God, of course. He is fully aware of the pressures and the influences that the world places upon us. But He also states very clearly that it doesn’t have to stay that way. Change can take place in our minds and our hearts:
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think. . . . so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (Romans 12:2–6).
If you want to solve the issue of racism in your own life, it’s very simple: You’ve got to believe the Bible. That’s the bottom line. You can spend millions of dollars trying to solve racist problems. You can pass new laws and institute all sorts of programs, but unless people believe the history in the Bible—unless our minds are renewed—we will never have the full picture of reality, and we won’t have the foundation that we need to make decisions that line up with truth rather than the lie.
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.
[It's an older article, but it was just recently promoted on AiG's Facebook page]
Today, missionaries working in animist, Hindu, and Buddhist cultures, as well as other societies where voodoo and witchcraft are widespread, do often see things that may reflect the demonic activity described in the Bible. The West has its share of Satan worshippers, too, who overtly practice occult rituals.
Some rock groups and other contemporary music groups over the past few decades have even been openly satanic. Yet demonic possession is seldom noted. Evidently, demons rarely show themselves in the same way in the “enlightened” Western world. But it may also be that the West’s anti-supernatural mentality keeps us from recognizing their activity.
Indeed, the West’s increasing opposition to belief in the supernatural is an even stronger indication of demonic deception.
From the beginning of time, views that question God’s authority have had a demonic or satanic origin. When he deceived Eve in the garden, Satan became “the god of this age” who “has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4, NIV) and who “deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). Paul tells us that whenever people sacrifice to idols, they are actually sacrificing to demons (1 Corinthians 10:19–20). That is as true today as it was in Old Testament times and the days of Jesus and Paul.
Demonic activity is not limited to obvious visitations and dramatic displays of possession. Paul warned Christians about doctrines of demons infiltrating the church (1 Timothy 4:1), and he said that Satan could disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:11–14). Not long ago in American history, for instance, Joseph Smith claimed to have received the doctrines of Mormonism from an “angel of light.” If that claim is true, the angel must have been a demon, because he taught a false gospel.1
In his well-documented book, The Long War Against God, the late Dr. Henry Morris argues that evolution itself is a very ancient idea that ultimately can be traced back to the Garden of Eden, when Satan questioned God’s truthfulness. The widespread acceptance of evolution (including millions of years and the big bang) is strong evidence of the continuing work of Satan and demons.
Atheists don’t want Christians teaching kids about God—they want to teach your kids there is no God! They really are out to get your kids, and they are using the public schools, secular media, museums, and other outlets to do this. The public schools (despite a minority of Christian teachers who are trying to be missionaries in the system) have by and large become churches of secular humanism.
Yes, the atheists, like Hitler and Stalin, know that if they can capture the next generation (through the education system, media, etc.), they will have the culture.
Christians need to take heed of God’s Word and ensure they are capturing the next generation for the Lord—passing that spiritual legacy along to the children, so they will not be captured by the world!
Yes, it takes only one generation to lose a culture. And America is on the brink of such a change right now! God’s people need to wake up and understand a battle for their kids is raging around them—a battle that is being won, at the present time, by those who seek to destroy the next generation spiritually!
A Call for Radical Change
In view of such relentless indoctrination that bombards our young people every day, giving a couple of thirty-minute lessons at church or home isn’t enough. While many parents have already opted to put their kids in Christian schools, weekly church programs, and homeschools, few appear to be doing a very good job filling in the gaps. More is needed.
Teaching young people how God’s Word—rather than the atheistic worldview—makes sense of our world requires intense study, commitment, and fervent prayer on our parts. The church and parents must reevaluate their old assumptions about the way we should be teaching our kids in a hostile culture, and work together to build the next generation by following the directives from God’s Word.
Imagine what would happen if God’s people raised up generations of kids who knew what they believed concerning the Christian faith, why they believe, and how to defend that faith against the secular attacks of the day. They could then proclaim the gospel with authority because they believed the authority upon which it stands. We would change the world!
Connecting Answers to the Gospel
America has long resisted the trend among Western nations to slide into secularism and unbelief, but that is changing. A 2012 survey found that the fastest-growing “religious” group in America has no religion at all. One in five Americans claims no affiliation with religion, and this category is even higher among young adults (one in three).
This downward spiral has impacted churches and Christian homes, as well. Two-thirds of children will leave the church after they leave home. So what’s missing in their lives? And what can we do to stop the exodus?
Answers
“Faith in Christ” isn’t blind. True faith must be built upon a knowledge of the truth, as revealed in God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:15–17). To be saved and walk with God, every believer first must know what he should believe and why. That’s our job . . . telling young people answers from the Bible. We’ve got to address the hard questions that are uppermost in their minds, including the origin of sin and death in this world.
Biblical Authority
The next link in the chain, once young people learn the truth, is for them to submit to the authority of God’s Word (John 14:21; James 1:22). They need to understand why we know the Bible is true: the authority of the One who gave it to us (Hebrews 4:12). They also need to see that, once they accept the Bible’s authority, it will make sense of the world around them.
The Gospel
Most Christians realize they need to proclaim the gospel if they want to see anyone saved (Romans 10:14). The definition of the gospel by which we are saved is quite clear: Christ died, was buried, and rose again “according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). But the power of the gospel rests on the authority of God’s Word (Romans 1:16).
Salvation
A young person’s salvation is ultimately a work of God’s grace. Yet that does not excuse us from responsibility. We have the duty to plant and water the truth (1 Corinthians 3:6–7) and pray to God in faith. But God is the one who “gives the increase” and we should give Him the glory. God has designed this plan for conveying His grace, and we need to make sure we’re doing our part. We are the ones appointed to instruct children with clear answers, to show them the Bible’s ultimate authority, and to share the gracious promises of the gospel!
The Heart of Unbelief
Some may wonder how a proof could be called infallible when so many people refuse to believe it. In the case of the risen Jesus, the problem was not with the evidence. After all, He was standing in front of them and could be touched and heard.8 Even today, the problem is not with the infallible proof of Scripture, nor is there a problem with the evidence from history or archaeology. The main problem is with humanity’s stubbornly rebellious heart. Jesus also spoke to this issue when talking about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). The rich man in Hades pleaded with Abraham in glory to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn the rich man’s brothers about the torments that awaited them if they didn’t repent. He claimed that “if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (v. 30). Abraham’s response alludes to Christ’s Resurrection and illustrates the stubbornness of the sinner’s heart: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead” (v. 31).
This willful rejection of the truth is well illustrated by a series of quotations from atheist philosopher Michael Martin concerning the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection.
“It is not inconceivable that on very rare occasions someone being restored to life has no natural or supernatural cause”; “I admit that some events could occur without any cause”; “[E]ven if the resurrection of Jesus was justified by the evidence, it would not support the belief that the Christian God exists and that Jesus is the Son of God.”9
In an effort to escape the implications of the Resurrection, Martin is willing to reject one of the fundamental principles of scientific methodology: cause and effect. Instead of bowing the knee to His Creator, Martin would rather believe in a causeless effect by which, out of all the people who have ever lived, the one who just happened to come back to life for no reason at all was Jesus, the Man who had fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, lived a sinless life, performed countless miracles, and predicted His own Resurrection (Matthew 20:18–19). This is special pleading at its worst.
Martin’s statement provides a great example of how a person usually interprets the data according to his worldview. As an atheist, Martin is prepared to believe just about anything on this matter except that God raised Jesus from the dead. When a person desires to remain in his skepticism, he will develop excuses to disbelieve the obvious. Although the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was proven by “many infallible proofs” and has been recorded in God’s Word, atheists like Michael Martin will continue to reject the free gift of God’s grace and cling to their irrational humanistic worldview.
The biblical global Flood happened about 4,350 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains a distorted account of the Flood, was written down in Mesopotamia, in the general region from which Abraham came. And it was probably written down on clay tablets at a time closer to Abraham’s day than to Moses’ time. Moses, inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21), wrote down the authentic account of the Flood, and it is preserved in the book of Genesis. Tyson asserts that the Akkadian epic, because it was written earlier than the Mosaic account, was the source of the Old Testament account. However, the source was the shared history of a real global Flood, not a shared piece of literature.
The biblical historical account, recorded under the inspiration of God by Moses, is completely believable in all its details. This genuine history in Genesis 6–9 and the distorted version adapted from Sumerian legends and preserved in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh report on the same historical event. Therefore, the fact that there are some similarities is easily understood.
In contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, the authenticity of the biblical account is supported by internal consistency of the Scriptural account, the consistency of the Scriptural account with the worldwide geological evidence of the Flood, the scientific confirmation of the biblical global Flood in every detail, and the consistency of the Scriptural account of the Flood’s survivors with other recorded history. The capricious and unseemly nature of the gods in the Gilgamesh epic stand in sharp contrast to the just, holy, and merciful character of God in the authentic biblical account. There is no justification for supposing the true history in the Bible to be a spin-off of the Gilgamesh epic.
What you believe about the Earth's past doesn’t just influence how you view it—your belief also determines how you view the future! Because of their beliefs about the past, many evolutionists are concerned that somehow mankind will be catastrophically wiped out and life as we know it will end on Earth. One of the most popular versions of this apocalyptic tale is that a massive asteroid, or several asteroids, will strike Earth and obliterate life. The Discovery Channel even recently made a video simulating what it would look like if a 500-kilometer (310-mile) asteroid smashed into the Pacific Ocean. According to their simulation, such an impact would destroy Earth and vaporize life.
Why is it that evolutionists are so concerned that humanity will someday be catastrophically destroyed? Well, according to man’s ideas about the past, life arose naturalistically and the universe is governed completely by the merciless laws of physics. According to their worldview, evolutionists contend there isn’t anyone upholding or sustaining the universe. We are simply at the mercy of naturalistic processes. Also, according to one evolutionary idea about the supposed dinosaur extinction event, a massive asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. If such an event happened once before, what’s to stop it from happening again and wiping out humanity this time?
Those who start with the Bible, however, get a completely different picture of Earth’s future because we start with a different picture of Earth’s past. According to God’s Word, the universe is not here as the result of naturalistic processes. God created the universe and has imposed order on it. The universe is not strictly governed by unfeeling natural laws. God upholds and sustains the universe that He has made (Hebrews 1:3). And we don’t need to worry that an asteroid will obliterate life. The Bible has already told us how things will end—with judgment from God when Jesus Christ returns to Earth (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:11–15). Those of us who have trusted in Christ as Savior have no fear of this coming judgment because our penalty for sin has already been paid by Jesus. But instead of fearing some hypothetical asteroid apocalypse, those who refuse to acknowledge Christ as Lord should fear this coming judgment, and it should bring them to repent and put their faith in Christ.
What starting point you begin with makes a big difference in how you view the past, present, and future. As Christians, we have no reason to fear man’s prediction about the future because we can know the God who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9–10), and He has already told us how it will end—and He is in total charge of it all. We need to be bold in telling others about the history—and the future—that God has revealed to us in His Word and in encouraging them to put their faith and trust in Christ.
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.
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!
The Bible teaches the contrary: the earth is special. Earth is unique among all the worlds that the Lord created. The description of creation as recorded in Genesis 1 makes this abundantly clear. Five of the six days of creation are spent creating and forming the earth and the life on it. Only one day is spent creating the other objects in the universe. Undoubtedly, the earth is different.
In fact, the earth is three days older than any of the other planets and stars in the universe.8 The earth was made on the first day of creation; God made it in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). The lights in the sky were made on the fourth day of creation. These lights are the sun, moon, and stars (both the “true” stars and the “wandering stars”—planets). Perhaps the Lord created the earth first to show its special significance in His divine plan.
Clearly, other planets do exist. There are several other planets in our own solar system besides earth, and astronomers have detected quite a number of planets orbiting other stars, and yet, our ability to detect extra-solar planets is still quite limited. It therefore seems very likely that there are countless billions of planets which have yet to be detected, but these planets are not merely accidents of nature. God created all these worlds for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11) and to declare His creative wisdom and glory to us. Since the other planets serve a different purpose than the earth, we expect that the planets will be different in nature than the earth. Science has certainly confirmed this biblical expectation
A Feathered Dinosaur?
A common idea among those who believe molecules-to-man evolution is that dinosaurs have turned into birds over millions of years. But, from the Bible (Genesis 1), we know that God created all things about 6,000 years ago—birds on Day 5 of the first week, dinosaurs (land animals) on Day 6.
So what about the “feathered dinosaurs”? Do they prove that dinosaurs changed into birds? For example, some scientists have recently found bumps on the forearm of a velociraptor. They suggest that the bumps were where feathers attached to the bone.
Although no actual feathers were found with the velociraptor fossil (or any other dinosaur fossil, for that matter), it may be that some dinosaurs had feathers. But this group of animals would merely be a kind of feathered reptile—descendants of the animals that God created in the beginning. Feathers on reptiles have nothing to do with proving that one kind of animal changed into another kind. They just show the creativity and diversity of our wonderful Creator God!
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.
[Note that this article was written for children.]
Scientists recently uncovered the fossilized footprints of an animal in southeastern Poland. It had feet and appeared to walk like a four legged creature. Why is this important?
It's important because some scientists have dated the fossilized footprints ten million years earlier than Tiktaalik, a fish-like creature that they believed was the “missing link” between water-dwelling creatures and land-dwelling creatures. Finding “older” fossil footprints, indicating that animals were already walking on land, makes these scientists doubt that Tiktaalik was first to begin walking on land.
Evolutionary scientists have made up an interesting story about how they believe fish eventually became land animals. They tell us that fish, living in water with low oxygen, first developed lungs. How could this happen? How could fish grow lungs so that they could breathe air? Then, supposedly, these fish changed their fins into front legs, to drag themselves out onto land.
The evolution story reads like a science fiction novel, and it is hard to believe that some scientists can present these theories and expect people to unquestionably believe them. When people turn away from God and His account of creation, they become “willingly ignorant.” The strangest ideas can be accepted as fact—even the idea that fish decided to grow all the body parts they needed to survive on land!
[Question: Did God use the same design for humans as for monkeys?]
Have you ever gone shopping and seen a whole bunch of really neat skateboards? You might know what type they are because of how they are painted or designed. They are similar because the same company made them. Well, when you look at God’s creation, you find many similarities because the same Maker created them.
God created all living things, and it makes sense that a lot of these share many similar characteristics or design. The same God, the same Designer, created both monkeys and humans and thus there are some similarities. But the differences are also important. Man is not an animal! Our Bible verse here says that man was made in God’s image—a monkey wasn’t.
Man is very different from a monkey. Man can think, he can appreciate and write music, and he can build airplanes and bridges. Monkeys can’t do this. Humans can have a relationship with their God, and we can spend eternity with Him if we believe His Word concerning salvation. We can ask forgiveness for our sins and believe in Jesus Christ, who took the punishment for our sins. Monkeys and animals cannot do that!
One of the reasons many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife is that they tend to look at today’s world and the problems that would be associated with close relations marrying, and they do not look at the clear historical record God has given to us.
They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their worldview on Scripture but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers.
Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the Word of One who knows everything and who is a reliable Witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of evidence which would otherwise be a real mystery. You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.
But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that if it were not, the laws of logic and morality—and even our own existence—would not be possible.
The topic of evolution, especially regarding how politicians have responded when asked if they believe in evolution or not, has been in the news lately. The very liberal Huffington Post published an article on the topic stating the following:
"The 2016 presidential campaign is already upon us and the debate is heating up over an unexpected issue—the theory of evolution. Of course, in an ideal world, evolution would never really become a campaign issue. But the anti-science wing of the Republican Party continues to voice skepticism. Apologists for this wing would dearly like to distract the media and the voting public from what is, frankly, a national if not a global embarrassment."
"In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate."
The truth of the matter, however, is that such statements as those in this article, and the questions about belief in evolution being asked of politicians, actually portray their anti-God agenda.
Just as the pro-evolution Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has done (and continues to do), the author of the Huffington Post article attempts to equate rejection of evolution with the rejection of the whole of science and thus undermining studies in biology, genetics, diseases, and computing. Because of a commitment to the religion of naturalism, many evolutionists try to intimidate people through the use of terms like “anti-science” in their attempts to bully people into thinking that those who reject evolution are undermining technological advancement.
I have observed that in most instances when the secular media write articles about Answers in Genesis, the authors will state we are against science and will use terms like “anti-intellectual,” “anti-academic,” and so on, and claim we are undermining the whole of what they call science. And then, when using the word science, they will discuss technology and try to intimidate people into believing that organizations like Answers in Genesis will adversely affect America’s technological achievements for the future. This is the agenda of Bill Nye, as was seen in his debate with me last year, and as witnessed in his numerous interviews and lectures around the world.
That’s why during my debate with Bill Nye, I concentrated on explaining that the word science means “knowledge.” And then I explained the difference between historical science (beliefs about the past) and observational science (using our five senses, repeatable tests, and so on) that helps build our technology.
During the debate, I showed video clips of creation scientists who had developed some great technological achievements. I then asked Bill Nye a question (a question I have often asked publicly of all evolutionists—which secularists won’t and cannot answer):
"Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?"
There is no such example! In fact, the real reason Bill Nye—and reporters questioning politicians who are contemplating running for US President—are bullying and intimidating people about evolution is not because belief in molecules-to-man evolution is necessary for technological advancement. It’s due more to the secular humanistic, anti-God agenda they want implemented!
You see, if there is no God who created us—no God who is the absolute authority—then “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2).
When the Huffington Post author states, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate,” the author really is saying, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be committed to the religion of naturalism and reject the absolute authority of the Word of God.” Having abandoned the Bible as the authority, the President can then insist on supporting gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else such a President deems is “right in his own eyes” (which is what we see happening).
In March, I woke up to the terrible news that a massive earthquake and tsunami had devastated Japan.
Today I can still see the TV images of the tsunami hitting the eastern coast of Japan. The mud, debris, and destruction were almost unbelievable to watch.
Now, there is a different kind of tsunami I want to write about. It’s one that is also causing major destruction, and it’s happening all around us as I write. This tsunami is biblical compromise in the church, and it’s creating waves of spiritual destruction throughout the Christian world.
I have written a number of blogs recently about Christian academics who are publishing books and articles—and giving talks—on topics relating to how they approach the Bible, and Genesis in particular. The blogs revealed that an increasing number of Christian academics teach that:
* Adam is just a metaphor for Israel and was not a real person.
* Genesis chapter 1 is not a material account of origins, but is supposedly about the creation of some “cosmic temple.”
* God took two animals and gave them “animal amnesia”’ so they wouldn’t remember all the death over the supposed millions of years that turned them into Adam and Eve.
* The image of God evolved in man over time.
* The apostle Paul “would have flunked hermeneutics” (the practice of Bible interpretation).
* The “apostles were lousy at exegesis” (expositing the biblical text), etc.
During his interview, Nye reportedly said,
That debate started with an offhanded comment I made on Big Think. I said, “If you want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't make your kids believe it.” And in lots of states, kids are taught that evolution is just one possible theory that explains how life came about, and that creationism is another.
We need these kids to be part of the future. We need them to innovate and change the world. But if you raise a generation of students who don't believe in the most fundamental idea in biology, it's a formula for disaster. This is against our national interest, and if you raise a generation like this, they're victims.
What Bill Nye is saying is that creationists can’t innovate or “change the world.” Well, he is obviously blatantly ignoring the many biblical creationists who can—and do—advance scientific knowledge and innovation every day. During our debate, I even gave him some compelling examples and introduced him to Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner that has saved millions of lives. Dr. Damadian is a biblical creationist, and he was certainly innovative! I also shared a video clip of Dr. Stuart Burgess, who has invented parts for NASA/ESA spacecraft. Dr. Burgess is also a biblical creationist and an innovative engineer.
So it is completely ridiculous and demonstrably untrue to claim that children and adults who are taught biblical creation won’t be able to innovate or change the world. By the way, our latest scientist to join Answers in Genesis, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, has a PhD in biology from Harvard University.
I’ve asked Bill Nye and other secularists many times if they can name one piece of technology that was developed because of a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. They still haven’t answered this question, and nor will they, because there aren’t any examples! Evolution is completely unrelated to technological innovation. As Dr. Damadian and Dr. Burgess clearly show, you don’t need to be an evolutionist to be an innovator!
And evolution is not “the most fundamental idea in biology,” as Nye says it is. As I pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, evolution is a way of explaining the origin of the universe and life naturalistically (atheistically). It is one framework through which to interpret the observational evidence. And far from being the foundation of biology, evolutionary ideas have done nothing to further our understanding of biology.
This is just another example of a false dichotomy, linking disbelief in evolution to a decline in scientific literacy. We would claim just the opposite; it is a consequence of evolutionary indoctrination which stifles scientific inquiry. After all, creation has not been taught in public schools for decades.
Lured? It was Bill Nye who attacked creationists for teaching kids the truth about history. The debate was the result of creationists defending themselves from Bill Nye’s attacks. Second, what unfounded ideas and data?
Actually, what is stated in the above two sentences by Bill Nye is really what Bill Nye did. He used slide after slide covering many different topics to try to intimidate people into believing his worldview, in order to explain the various evidences he brought up with very little detail, and when refuted, he brought it up again anyway! Perhaps this is so people could not even begin to understand the underlying assumptions inherent in his arguments.
Although Bill Nye wanted to destroy Ken Ham, Mr. Ham wasn’t out to destroy him. Ken Ham wanted to faithfully respond to the agreed-upon debate question, and graciously but firmly challenge Mr. Nye and all those watching concerning the nature of the origins debate—one of a worldview conflict because of differing starting points for those worldviews. Mr. Ham also unashamedly proclaimed the gospel as he wanted to win Mr. Nye and any skeptic watching over to the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel message.
Interestingly, Bill Nye still hasn’t addressed this issue of the existence of logic. This was brought up by Ken Ham several times. Logic is a biblical concept and makes no sense in Bill Nye’s religion. Bill Nye’s humanistic worldview is materialistic in its outlook. So immaterial things like logic can’t exist in his religious perspective. He must cast aside his religion and borrow from a biblical worldview just to make his case against a biblical worldview!
It’s sad but true—dinosaurs are probably used more than anything else in an attempt to convince children and adults alike that evolution is fact. So much so, that for many, the words “dinosaur” and “evolution” are almost synonymous.
[On the recent ice discovery on Mars]
In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.
[snip]
Since the focus of God’s plan occurs on planet Earth—and since nearly every chapter of the Bible takes place somewhere on planet Earth4—when it comes to astronomy, creationists have a basic framework in which to research and explore but few revealed details. This doesn’t mean we can rewrite what God’s Word clearly teaches—that the entire universe dates back only 6,000 or so years, with most of the universe having been created on Day 4 of Creation Week. But looking to the heavens gives us a great opportunity to research, theorize, and sit in awe of God’s majesty and creation—and, as is the case more and more today, exercise our critical thinking skills.
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.
Though the origin of this date, specifically for the Israelites, can be traced to Moses, the day may well have been chosen by God going back to previous events, as famous Bible chronicler Archbishop Ussher pointed out (the approximate day Adam and Eve sinned, according to Ussher’s calculations, and God’s subsequent covering of their nakedness with animal skins).
It seems no coincidence that cultures all around the world in both present and ancient times have had a holiday when the dead were remembered and animals were sacrificed. We can make a pretty strong argument that this holiday goes back to a time when all the peoples lived together—and then they took this holiday to various parts of the world.
Otherwise, it seems strange and difficult to explain how these cultures developed celebrations that are so similar. This would likely push the true origin of “Halloween” and these other “days of the dead” to the time before the dispersion at Babel (Genesis 11), over 4,200 years ago, after which different early cultures began to vary in its practice.
.......
Other Christians in the past have recognized this connection. For example, Alfred Rehwinkel, a professor of theology at Concordia Seminary, realized that nations throughout the world had a similar day of the dead, and he directly related this to the Flood of Noah’s day.11 John Urquhart pointed this out as far back as 1931, soon after the holiday of Halloween gained prominence in the United States.12
Due to the many, varied accounts of celebrations of the day of the dead around the world, I would strongly suggest that its origin was a time when people groups were still gathered together or had closer ties. Is the event of Noah’s sacrifice where the day of the dead really originates? It is possible.
It was a time when there was a sacrifice to cover sins and a reminder why death reigns in this sin-cursed world. It was a spiritual time, a time when people remembered that a sudden disaster, the global Flood, took virtually the entire population because of sin. Consider Noah for a moment: he even lost brothers and sisters in the Flood—the grief would have been overwhelming (Genesis 5:30). Halloween’s roots could easily extend this far, but there should be no dogmatism about that being the case.
If Nasa has indeed found (more) ice on Mars, it would neither be a major surprise nor a matter of worry for young-earth creationists. After all, we’ve known for a long time that there is plenty of ice on Mars (in the polar ice caps) and that a permafrost layer probably extends considerably beyond the ice caps.
In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.
[Crazy assertion in 3..2...1...]
The ice on Mars may possibly be, in part, a frozen remnant of a global Mars flood, which has been theorized by some creationists to have occurred near the same time as Noah’s flood—perhaps even as an extension of it. Even today, the Martian ice caps contain enough water to cover the entire Martian surface if the ice were to melt.
[in a previous paragraph, he mentions how all natural explanations fail]:
Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.
[If the magi alone saw the star, maybe it means the story was sodding made up??]
You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.
The article goes on to state,
Sexually, Cyrus said she is “down with” anything. She views her sexuality and even her gender identity as fluid. “I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me,” she said. “I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.”
Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason? It’s actually because in her heart she knows God exists (Romans 1), she knows she is different from the animals as she is made in God’s image (Genesis 1)—and she has a conscience (as seared as it is because of her sinful rebellion) because the law is written on our hearts (Romans 2).
Recently Bill Nye “the Science Guy” appeared in an interview in which he defended his participation in our evolution/creation debate last year. Many secularists were upset that Nye chose to debate me, claiming that debating creationists gives us some sense of credibility. Of course, most secularists ignore the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and many PhD scientists today are also biblical creationists (we have several PhD scientists on our full-time staff).
Actually, secularists these days don’t want public debates for a number of reasons, one being they don’t want the public to hear the information they have by and large successfully censored (in the public school system and much of the media). Evolutionists know that when creationists present the true nature of the creation/evolution debate (as I did during the debate with Bill Nye), many people will understand that molecules-to-man evolution is a belief—a religion. The secularists don’t want the public to understand that the religion of atheism is being forced on millions of school students and the culture as a whole.
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.
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.
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
Atheists and evolutionists will often mock us for our rejection of biological evolution, but what really makes them hateful and emotional is when we reject millions and billions of years. You see, without the billions of years that secularists posit for the age of the universe and Earth, they can’t propose their belief that one kind of creature changed into a different kind. So when we reject long ages on biblical and scientific grounds, we really are striking at the heart of their religion—millions of years. In response, they get very emotional, angry, and often hateful. Secularists regularly call young-earth creationists anti-intellectual, anti-academic, anti-scientific, and other rhetoric involving ad hominem attacks. This really shows that long ages is the foundation for what they believe.
Back in 1954, American biochemist George Wald, a Nobel Prize recipient, stated this:
Time is in fact the hero of the plot . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
Time (millions of years) is absolutely necessary for secularists to propose their biological evolutionary ideas. If the universe is only thousands of years old, then what do they do—believe the Bible? But people like Richard Dawkins are in rebellion against their Creator, so they cannot allow even a suggestion that the universe could be thousands of years old.
Sadly, Steve Irwin wasn’t a creationist. He mentioned evolution and the concept of millions of years many times in his television programs. For example, he once told Larry King on CNN’s Larry King Live cable program that crocodiles had been around for 200 million years, and if you weren’t careful they would kill you"
[...]
What does the death of Steve Irwin mean for us? It’s a reminder that we all need to repent of our sin so that we can be saved for eternity—because we all face death. As a witnessing opportunity at this time, point more of your friends/relatives to AiG’s website for answers to this important question—one that affects everyone’s eternity.
[Read the whole thing only if you've already lost your faith in humanity]
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
A huge spot on Mars found last year by astronomers had some scientists wondering whether it contained life. Evolutionists have speculated that this hole or cavern “might be the sort of place that could support life.” The desire to find life on Mars is so strong that even a hole is promising!
Meanwhile, a 2018 European Space Agency mission—to find signs of life on hundreds of extrasolar planets—is being planned. Not surprisingly, it’s called the “Darwin mission.” Billions of dollars will be spent on what will be a fruitless search for extraterrestrial life, rather than to believe the ultimate Extraterrestrial placed us here.
Groups that descended into animism [after Noah's flood] might never emerge from this ‘stone age’ of their development, because of the stifling effects of such things as taboos, and fear of evil spirits. One tribal group in the Philippines, for example, had a taboo against water, causing rampant disease due to lack of hygiene—before the Gospel of Jesus Christ rescued them from superstition.
[The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbor (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone]
If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?
Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.
As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
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.
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary. Consider the evolutionist who argues:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question.
