www.answersingenesis.org

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Arkophobia

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

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

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

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

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

image

Creation Wise: Ark Danger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Obama: Gay “Marriage” Over Religious Freedom

In a recent address to the LGBT community, US President Barack Obama made several startling claims that only highlight the continuing animosity and intolerance towards Bible-believing Christians. He said that “Freedom of religion isn't reason enough to deny any American their constitutional rights,” referring, of course, to gay “marriage,” and he added that “it's important to recognize that some parts of the country remain uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and that it will take time for them to catch up to the majority of Americans who support such unions,” according to CBS News.

The President went on to say, “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions . . . . But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” This is the same President who, in 2013, addressed Planned Parenthood, a child-killing machine (i.e., by abortion, which is the murder of children; an estimated 55 million lives have been taken by abortion clinics since Roe v. Wade in 1973), and said “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Frankly, President Obama cannot be talking about the same God of the Bible that I worship! Now, he has been known to selectively quote from the Bible when he gives some of his speeches, but he neglects so much of the Bible. For example, if he quoted Christ in Matthew 19, he would have to tell people that our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught clearly that true marriage was one man and one woman. And if President Obama quoted Romans 1, he would have to admit that homosexual behavior is sinful because of “vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26–28).

So, according to the President of the United States, gay “marriage” is more important than religious freedom for Americans. Now, what the President—and many other leaders who support gay “marriage”—don’t seem to understand (or refuse to care about) is that those who are forced to condone gay “marriage” against their religious beliefs are having their First Amendment constitutional rights denied. If Christians aren’t allowed to act on their beliefs, such as their Bible-based belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, as God’s Word clearly states and as Jesus clearly teaches us, then what kind of religious freedom is that? It’s no freedom at all! In the end, all that happens is Christians giving up their constitutional rights—protected by the First Amendment—as the government tramples on their liberties.

Troy Lacey and Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheism Is Religion

Atheists Down Under Are Worried

Do atheists have beliefs? Of course they do!

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

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

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

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

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word religion this way:

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

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

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much Campaigning about Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie #crackpot #dunning-kruger answersingenesis.org

What would a Tyrannosaurus rex with a major toothache act like? We probably don’t want to know! We know at least one T. rex was suffering from bone disease in its lower jaw when it died. This disease extended to the root of one of its teeth and was discovered using a CT-based, non-invasive imaging approach. So why is a diseased dinosaur significant in a biblical worldview?

Well, Genesis 1:31 tells us God’s original creation was “very good.” Yet many Christians accept the secular timeline for dinosaurs, believing they died out millions of years ago and before man existed. But that puts death, suffering, and disease before Adam’s sin!

Examples of disease in fossils, including dinosaurs that are supposedly millions of years old, are fairly common. Those who accept the conventional evolutionary dates for these fossils must believe in millions of years of death and disease in a “very good” creation. But we know these things aren’t good! They’re horrible and are consequences of sin, not of God’s original design.

Instead of trying to add man’s ideas into the Bible, let’s start with God’s Word. When we do that, we see that God created a perfect world (Deuteronomy 32:4) just a few thousand years ago, and dinosaurs were just part of the incredible diversity of creatures God made.

Oh, and most fossils are from the flood of Noah’s day about 4,300 years ago.

Ken Ham and Avery Foley #conspiracy #fundie #wingnut answersingenesis.org

Deathbed Confession of 'Jane Roe': Was Norma McCorvey Paid Off?

Reportedly, a new documentary features McCorvey’s “deathbed confession”—she wasn’t really a pro-life activist. It’s claimed she was paid to play the part.

A Supreme Court decision in 1973 changed American history forever when the justices decided that abortion is a constitutional right. Over 60 million children in the USA have been murdered in their mother’s wombs as a result since then. The woman at the center of that court case was known simply as “Jane Roe.” She later became known by her real name, Norma McCorvey, and worked to get Roe v. Wade overturned as a pro-life activist. Well, Norma McCorvey is back in the news once again, three years after her death.

It’s claimed she was paid to play the part by pro-life groups.

A new documentary titled AKA Jane Roe is set to air on FX and it’s already stirring up controversy. Reportedly, the documentary features McCorvey’s “deathbed confession”—supposedly she wasn’t really a pro-life activist. It’s claimed she was paid to play the part by pro-life groups. Headlines in newspapers throughout the US and around the world are running with the story, publishing headlines such as “Anti-abortion rights movement paid 'Jane Roe' thousands to switch sides, documentary reveals” and “Jane Roe’s deathbed confession exposes the immorality of the Christian right.” Other articles are claiming the “bombshell” revelation is nothing more than a “smear campaign” and McCorvey truly was pro-life. However, I’m sure we’ve all learned not to trust the media these days! We know how they distort, lie about, and misrepresent AiG over and over again.

Answers in Genesis #fundie #dunning-kruger answersingenesis.org

Neanderthals and Modern Humans Were Buried Together
Perhaps the strongest evidence that Neanderthals were fully human and part of our biblical “kind” is that at four sites people of Neanderthal morphology and people of modern human morphology were buried together. In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people. Skhul Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is considered to be a burial site of anatomically modern Homo sapiens individuals. Yet Skhul IV and Skhul IX fossil skulls are closer to the Neanderthal configuration than they are to modern humans.27 Qafzeh, Galilee, Israel, is also considered to be an anatomically modern burial site. However, Qafzeh skull 6 is clearly Neanderthal in its morphology.28 Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is one of the classic Neanderthal burial sites. But the Tabun C2 mandible is more closely aligned with modern mandibles found elsewhere.29 The Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia, is one of the most studied Neanderthal burial sites. At least 75 individuals are buried there. The remains are fragmentary, making diagnosis difficult. However, the addition of several newly identified fragments to the Krapina A skull (now known as Krapina 1) reveals it to be much more modern than was previously thought, indicating that it is intermediate in morphology between Neanderthals and modern humans.30

That Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community. The false distinction made by evolutionists today was not made by the ancients. To call the Neanderthals “Cave Men” is to give a false picture of who they were and why caves were significant in their lives.

The human family is a unified family. “From one man He [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth” (Acts 17:26).31

AiG staff #fundie answersingenesis.org

In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

[the idiocy, circular logic, and distortion continues ad infinitum.]

Darius and Karin Viet #fundie answersingenesis.org

We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate biblical approach to apologetics. The common accusation that the presuppositionalist uses circular reasoning is actually true. In fact, everyone uses some degree of circular reasoning when defending his ultimate standard (though not everyone realizes this fact). Yet if used properly, this use of circular reasoning is not arbitrary and, therefore, not fallacious.

Contrary to what your non-Christian friend said, circular reasoning is surprisingly a valid argument. The conclusion does follow from the premises. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes.

[Emphasis added]

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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).

Peter Galling #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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).

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.

Tas Walker #fundie answersingenesis.org

When one of Aus­tralia’s best-known geo­logical landmarks collapsed recently, it sure made a splash—not just in the water, but across the media front pages. This line from a news report was typical: ‘One of the famous Twelve Apostles collapsed yesterday into a heap of rubble, destroying in seconds a landmark nature had taken 20 million years to create.’

A National Parks officer said she was shocked by the collapse. ‘You think these structures are going to last for a while and certainly not actually see one collapse in your lifetime.’

And a tour guide was quoted as saying: ‘It’s pretty unbelievable … it won’t be the same sort of photo any more, but it is evolution.’

Actually, it’s neither unbelievable, nor evolution. The public reaction illustrates how people have been conditioned with geological ideas about ‘millions of years’ that do not match reality. Such sudden collapses of limestone cliffs and columns along Australia’s shoreline occur frequently enough that people shouldn’t be surprised. But conditioned as they are to think of slow-and-gradual processes over long ages, rapid erosion comes as a shock to many.

If only more people ap­prec­i­ated the geological effects of Noah’s Flood, they would be more aware of geological hazards, and not think that the rocks are a permanent feature of the landscape. These eroding ‘Apos­tles’ on Australia’s south coast have a similar message to the original Apostles of Jesus’ time, one concerned with the authority and reliability of God’s Word. This world is young, just as the Bible records.

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.

Kid's Answers #fundie answersingenesis.org

Australian Lungfish
Created on Day 5
November 17, 2009
Design

The fossils of a creature almost identical to the Australian lungfish were found in Northern Ireland and were dated at 100 million years. With the Australian lungfish being limited to the waters of Queensland, Australia, how did remains of this creature get in Northern Ireland? Simple. Before the global Flood, the Australian lungfish may not have been limited to its present region. Also, the effects of the Flood could have moved this creature to the area of present-day Northern Ireland and buried it for people to find later. These fossil finds are an amazing testimony to God’s hand in creating the lungfish kind and to His hand in covering the entire earth in a global Flood.

Cindy Richmond #fundie answersingenesis.org

[Winner of the "Easier is always better"-award]

In my new studies into the question of origins, I came across so many things that were confusing to the evolutionary scientists, such as “older” aged rock layers being on top of the “younger” layers. They couldn’t explain it easily, but creationist research could.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

We often hear the word prehistoric used to describe dinosaurs or the woolly mammoths and other Ice Age creatures. It means that they existed before written history.

Could that be? What does the Bible tell us? God’s Word gives us a written record of earth history from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1). It describes how God created all things, including every kind of dinosaur and other creature, during the first six days of history, only 6,000 years ago.

What about cavemen? Surely they were prehistoric. Not really! Today we find evidence that some people lived in caves. But these were descendants of Noah. They lived in caves to protect themselves and their families from the weather and animals. They were very smart, like Noah!

The Bible says the first two people were Adam and Eve. They were created just 6,000 years ago with dinosaurs and all other land animals. All people are part of Adam's family.

Nothing is prehistoric!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

[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!

Stacia McKeever #fundie answersingenesis.org

Take, for example, the situation my four-year-old friend Sarah found herself in. According to Sarah, “My friend told me that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but I told her that wasn’t true.” Even at four years old, Sarah was able to pick up on a false view because her parents had instilled in her the difference between what’s wrong and what’s right.

...

Just as we use the Bible to teach our children morality, so we need to use the Bible to teach our children history by tearing down for them the wrong view of history and building up the right (biblical) view of history.

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

[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!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

Roger Patterson #fundie answersingenesis.org

[From an AiG article on the symbols of Easter]

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

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

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

With kindness for the gospel,
Bodie

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Spiritual Connection of Alien Abduction Claims

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

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

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

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

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

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creation, Evolution, and the Passing of a Judicial Giant

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

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

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

Andrew A. Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Biblical Flood Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chalk It Up to Assumptions

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

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

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

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

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

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

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

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

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

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

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

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

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

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

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

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

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

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

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

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

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

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

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

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

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

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

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

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

The Powerful Word of God

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

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

Footnotes

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

AIG #fundie answersingenesis.org

Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.

Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation.

Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.

Dr. Georgia Purdom #fundie answersingenesis.org

Some people have wrongly assumed that Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) are contradictory in their account of Judas’ death. Since the Bible is inerrant Judas cannot have died by hanging and died by falling and bursting open. Rather they are two different viewpoints of the same event. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because they were hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it.
Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging. The reason for ordering the events as such is twofold. First, if someone has fallen and their internal organs spilled out they would die and so could not subsequently die from hanging. Secondly, even when people suffer bad falls they do not usually burst open and have their internal organs spill out. The skin is very tough and even when cut in the abdominal area their internals do not usually spill out. Thus, it is unlikely that Judas could die in this manner merely from falling.
Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.
There is no contradiction surrounding Judas’ death; rather, merely two descriptions given by two different authors of the same event.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Jerry Bergman #fundie answersingenesis.org

Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind. Society, he felt, would some day regard him as a great ‘scientific socialist’, the benefactor of all humankind. By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolutionary development. If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him. As a result, the human race will grievously suffer. If Darwinism is not true, what Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history and Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Extrasolar “Super-Earth” Atmosphere Contradicts Evolutionary Assumptions

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIG staff writer #fundie answersingenesis.org

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


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

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

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

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

What causes the changes in the earth’s rotation? There are several causes. First, random events such as earthquakes can shuffle the earth’s material and change the earth’s moment of inertia. When the earth’s moment of inertia changes, conservation of angular momentum requires that the rotation rate must change as well. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that caused the large tsunami shrunk the earth slightly and shortened the earth’s rotation by about 2.7 millionths of a second. Second, annual events such as seasonal growing and melting glaciers and ice caps change the earth’s moment of inertia. Third, there is a long-term periodic trend caused by astronomical bodies.

Finally, there is a long-term secular (non-periodic) slowing in the earth’s rotation caused by the tidal interaction of the earth and moon. As the earth slows its rotation, the moon spirals away from the earth. Therefore, in the past the earth spun more rapidly and the moon was much closer to the earth. Direct computation shows that the earth and moon would have been in contact about 1.3 billion years ago. Even a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that tides would have been a mile high. No one—including those who believe that the earth is far older than a billion years—thinks that tides were ever that high or that the moon and the earth touched a little more than a billion years ago.

However, since the earth and moon are only thousands of years old as the Bible clearly indicates, the long-term change in the earth-moon system is no problem. Indeed, what we see in the interaction between the earth and moon offers powerful evidence that the earth and moon are young.

Dr. Terry Mortenson #fundie answersingenesis.org

Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Jesus was a young-earth creationist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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).

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

image

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

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

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

[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).