www.answersingenesis.org

Ken Ham and Franklin Graham #fundie #wingnut #homophobia #transphobia answersingenesis.org

It’s being described as “the most comprehensive assault on Christianity in America ever written into law,” “a dangerous threat to our nation,” “the Left’s woke new heresy code,” and “something no American should stand for.” What is it? The so-called “Equality Act” that was recently introduced to Congress. But it’s for anything but “equality”—it’s for destroying freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in this nation, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
[…]
Here’s how Franklin Graham describes the possible effects of this legislation in an email.[…]

The Equality Act Will:

* Designate schools, churches, and healthcare organizations as “public accommodations.” With this, schools, churches, and hospitals could be forced to accept the government’s beliefs and mandates about sexual orientation and gender identity. That would be highly intrusive and incredibly far-reaching. It will threaten everyday speech where people can be fined or lose their jobs for using the wrong name or pronouns.
* Legislate that we allow boys in girls’ sports, boys in girls’ locker rooms, men in women’s shelters, and men in women’s prisons. It will force teachers and students to publicly pretend that a biological male is a female. Schools will be encouraged or mandated to instruct first, second, and third graders that they can choose to be a boy or a girl, or neither, or both, making biological sex (and science) a relic of the past.

"Dr." Jason Lisle #fundie answersingenesis.org

(On the question "How we know that only the Bible is the written and actual word of God, when other religion's book claim the same?")

The argument is not “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.” Rather, the argument is “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is and any alternative leads to absurdity.”

If the Bible were not the Word of God, we would have no foundation for all the things we take for granted, such as laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is based on the self-consistent nature of the biblical God (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible itself tells us that all knowledge depends upon God (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Most other religious books do not make the claim that all knowledge is deposited in their god; and if they did, they would not be able to make good on the claim. Therefore, the argument will only work for the Bible.

AIG #fundie answersingenesis.org

There are many reasons we believe the Bible and all that it contains:

* The Bible claims to be the Word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that every word of Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Peter 1:21 says that men of God wrote as they were “driven along” by the Holy Spirit.
* The Bible shows itself to be the Word of God. Every time there is a scientific or historical fact mentioned in the Bible, it has been shown to be true (the earth is round, currents in the sea, the prevailing winds, etc.). Even when a civilization mentioned has not been heard of before, archaeology eventually finds evidence that it really did exist.
* Jesus Christ quoted from the Bible and believed it to be true. Jesus used the Bible when He was being tempted by Satan. He also quoted the Bible numerous times and stated that He was fulfilling Scripture.
* Many Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled. There are thousands of prophecies in the Bible that have come true. Jesus Himself fulfilled over 600 through His life, death, and resurrection. Because so many prophecies in the Bible have already come true, we can trust that the rest will be fulfilled in the future.
* If the Bible is not true, then we have no basis for claiming we have been saved from our sins. It is only because of the Bible that we can say our sins have been forgiven. If we trust the Bible for our salvation, we must trust everything it says. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing only what we want to believe.

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Humans Are Just Animals Then . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Do Rights Come From?

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

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

Evolutionary Morality—Hopelessly Inconsistent

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

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

(...)

"Let Them Have Dominion”

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

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

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

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

Avery Foley and Troy Lacey #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell #fundie answersingenesis.org

The biblical global Flood happened about 4,350 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains a distorted account of the Flood, was written down in Mesopotamia, in the general region from which Abraham came. And it was probably written down on clay tablets at a time closer to Abraham’s day than to Moses’ time. Moses, inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21), wrote down the authentic account of the Flood, and it is preserved in the book of Genesis. Tyson asserts that the Akkadian epic, because it was written earlier than the Mosaic account, was the source of the Old Testament account. However, the source was the shared history of a real global Flood, not a shared piece of literature.

The biblical historical account, recorded under the inspiration of God by Moses, is completely believable in all its details. This genuine history in Genesis 6–9 and the distorted version adapted from Sumerian legends and preserved in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh report on the same historical event. Therefore, the fact that there are some similarities is easily understood.

In contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, the authenticity of the biblical account is supported by internal consistency of the Scriptural account, the consistency of the Scriptural account with the worldwide geological evidence of the Flood, the scientific confirmation of the biblical global Flood in every detail, and the consistency of the Scriptural account of the Flood’s survivors with other recorded history. The capricious and unseemly nature of the gods in the Gilgamesh epic stand in sharp contrast to the just, holy, and merciful character of God in the authentic biblical account. There is no justification for supposing the true history in the Bible to be a spin-off of the Gilgamesh epic.

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Emphasis added)

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

.........

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

What you believe about the Earth's past doesn’t just influence how you view it—your belief also determines how you view the future! Because of their beliefs about the past, many evolutionists are concerned that somehow mankind will be catastrophically wiped out and life as we know it will end on Earth. One of the most popular versions of this apocalyptic tale is that a massive asteroid, or several asteroids, will strike Earth and obliterate life. The Discovery Channel even recently made a video simulating what it would look like if a 500-kilometer (310-mile) asteroid smashed into the Pacific Ocean. According to their simulation, such an impact would destroy Earth and vaporize life.

Why is it that evolutionists are so concerned that humanity will someday be catastrophically destroyed? Well, according to man’s ideas about the past, life arose naturalistically and the universe is governed completely by the merciless laws of physics. According to their worldview, evolutionists contend there isn’t anyone upholding or sustaining the universe. We are simply at the mercy of naturalistic processes. Also, according to one evolutionary idea about the supposed dinosaur extinction event, a massive asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. If such an event happened once before, what’s to stop it from happening again and wiping out humanity this time?

Those who start with the Bible, however, get a completely different picture of Earth’s future because we start with a different picture of Earth’s past. According to God’s Word, the universe is not here as the result of naturalistic processes. God created the universe and has imposed order on it. The universe is not strictly governed by unfeeling natural laws. God upholds and sustains the universe that He has made (Hebrews 1:3). And we don’t need to worry that an asteroid will obliterate life. The Bible has already told us how things will end—with judgment from God when Jesus Christ returns to Earth (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:11–15). Those of us who have trusted in Christ as Savior have no fear of this coming judgment because our penalty for sin has already been paid by Jesus. But instead of fearing some hypothetical asteroid apocalypse, those who refuse to acknowledge Christ as Lord should fear this coming judgment, and it should bring them to repent and put their faith in Christ.

What starting point you begin with makes a big difference in how you view the past, present, and future. As Christians, we have no reason to fear man’s prediction about the future because we can know the God who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9–10), and He has already told us how it will end—and He is in total charge of it all. We need to be bold in telling others about the history—and the future—that God has revealed to us in His Word and in encouraging them to put their faith and trust in Christ.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye to Feature in Upcoming Religious Movie

I recently blogged about Bill Nye’s upcoming book Unstoppable. Well, in addition to his new book, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” is also reportedly going to be featured in a documentary about his life and work. One website describes the documentary as “a film for science. A film for the cosmos. The full access, exclusive film about Bill Nye.” Really it should be called “a film for the religion of naturalism. A film to promote worship of the cosmos. An exclusive film about the very religious Bill Nye.” Yes, it will be a religious film!

The documentary, which was trying to raise $650,000 on Kickstarter, has raised far more than the goal. Now, Kickstarter campaigns may give rewards out to those who back a project, with better rewards for those who donate more. I found it humorous how one of the rewards—for those who gave $20 or more towards this project—is “BILL'S HAND WRITTEN NOTES FROM THE 'HAMM [sic] ON NYE DEBATE’ Own a special piece of history with a PDF of Bill's handwritten notes from the epic debate in Kentucky with creationist Ken Hamm [sic].” So they will give you Bill Nye’s notes from our 2014 debate if you donate, but I have not seen Nye actively directing people to the free YouTube video of the unedited debate (with the exception of placing it in the video section of his billnye.com website) or the DVD (which he has the rights to use). Maybe he doesn’t want people to actually watch the debate because then they will be exposed to the truth of creation and the gospel of Jesus Christ! And I’m sure Bill doesn’t want people to watch and understand the word science, and the difference between historical science (e.g., Bill’s beliefs about origins based on the religion of naturalism) and observational science, which builds the incredible technology we have today. If you haven’t viewed the debate video already, then I encourage you to watch it at this link. Note that we are not afraid or ashamed in any way to encourage everyone to watch the video of the debate. I challenge Bill Nye to tell people to do the same—or even sell the DVD of the debate as we do and keep the proceeds.

Now, we don’t know what information will be included in the upcoming documentary about Bill Nye, but it’s likely that the film will be full of evolutionary teaching—all part of the religion of naturalism (atheism). As Christians, we need to be equipped to answer the questions that will inevitably arise from those who view the documentary. And we can use this coming documentary as a way of opening the door for conversation about the nature of science, creation/evolution, the age of the Earth, biblical authority, and, of course, the gospel. I encourage you, if you haven’t already, to order a copy of the in-depth look at the debate, Inside the Nye/Ham Debate, which I coauthored with my son-in-law Bodie Hodge. This book is an excellent resource to help you engage with the common objections to biblical creation and common arguments for evolutionary ideas. And I’m sure that the same old empty arguments Bill Nye brought up in the debate will be featured in the movie.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

Changing Evolutionary Views

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

DARWIN’S IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION WERE INHERENTLY RACIST.

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

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

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

Unchanging Word of God

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

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

The Tower of Babel

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

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

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

THE TOWER OF BABEL EXPLAINS WHY WE ARE SO DIFFERENT.

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

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

(...)

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

[Emphasis added]

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Lessons from Back to the Future

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Kids Answers #fundie answersingenesis.org

Cheetah

Created on Day 6

Design
The cheetah has smaller teeth than the other large cats. It has large, powerful claws that help grab the ground at high speeds, and larger nasal passages that allow it to take in more air during and after running. These physical features began to be used to kill prey after man’s disobedience against God.

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.

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

Dinosaur Footprint Wall in Bolivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Footnotes

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

John Woodmorappe #fundie answersingenesis.org

We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.

Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”

Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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).

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Secularist Media War Against the Ark Continues

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

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

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

A Recent Case in Point

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

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

[...]

Intolerant Atheists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[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!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Giant Siberian “Unicorn” Discovered

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Answers In Genesis Staff Member #fundie answersingenesis.org

[On the recent ice discovery on Mars]

In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.

[snip]

Since the focus of God’s plan occurs on planet Earth—and since nearly every chapter of the Bible takes place somewhere on planet Earth4—when it comes to astronomy, creationists have a basic framework in which to research and explore but few revealed details. This doesn’t mean we can rewrite what God’s Word clearly teaches—that the entire universe dates back only 6,000 or so years, with most of the universe having been created on Day 4 of Creation Week. But looking to the heavens gives us a great opportunity to research, theorize, and sit in awe of God’s majesty and creation—and, as is the case more and more today, exercise our critical thinking skills.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Ancient Shopping Lists Confirm God’s Word

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

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

Literate or Illiterate?

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

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

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

Widespread Literacy Supports True Scriptural Timelines

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

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

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

Archaeology Again Corroborates Scripture

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

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

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

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

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).

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

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!

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, NASA released the first close images of Pluto recently taken by the New Horizons space probe. What the photos revealed was a shock to conventional uniformitarian scientists who believe in a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system. Over the past half century, planetary scientists have become accustomed to finding many impact craters on the surfaces of bodies in the solar system. However, from the preliminary photos of Pluto’s surface, these scientists have found far fewer craters than they expected. Earlier wide-field views of half of Pluto’s surface seem to indicate a few craters, but the first close-up region examined appeared to have no craters.

Craters appear to be the results of collisions with smaller bodies. Most scientists think that the solar system formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, so they interpret craters in terms of their accumulation during that time. Supposedly, many of the impacts were from leftover material that did not form into planets. If true, then the rate at which craters formed was much greater in the early solar system than it is today. Some surfaces, such as Earth’s and Jupiter’s satellite Io, have relatively few craters. Planetary scientists explain this by geological processes that remove or cover craters. On Earth, the main geological processes responsible for this are believed to be the sedimentation and igneous activity accompanying plate tectonics, and weathering and erosion. On Io, the principle mechanism of crater removal is volcanism—Io has many active volcanoes that change the surface regularly. Some surfaces of solar system bodies, such as Earth’s moon, have regions of high crater density and regions of low crater density. This is explained by volcanism that affected parts of them, such as on our moon, and not others.

Planetary scientists use crater density to judge the relative ages of various surfaces and regions. The lunar maria (pronounced MAR-ee-uh) appear to be volcanic plains and have far fewer craters on them than on the heavily cratered lunar highlands. Presumably, the volcanism and related processes that formed the lunar maria covered over many of the craters originally there. Hence, the maria are younger than the lunar highlands.

Similarly, the craterless surface of Io is very young, as evidenced by the ongoing volcanism that we have witnessed occurring on its surface. Europa, another large satellite of Jupiter, only has a few craters, suggesting that its surface has been reworked, though not as recently as Io’s. The two other large satellites of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto, have increasing crater densities, suggesting still older surfaces, but surfaces that have been reworked to some degree. The densities of craters on the surfaces of these four large satellites of Jupiter increase with distance from the planet, as do the inferred ages of their surfaces. This disparity is explained in terms of tidal flexing of Jupiter’s strong gravity that heats those satellites’ interiors to permit volcanic activity. The tidal heating decreases with distance from Jupiter.

With the exception of Io, every surface on solar system bodies that we had examined, planets, their satellites, asteroids, and even comets, appear to have impact craters, suggesting to most planetary scientists that they all have great age. This is why the lack of craters on Pluto is such a shock. Being far from the sun, Pluto ought to be very cold and hence not have experienced recent volcanism. Any primordial heat would have long ago dissipated, if the solar system were 4.5 billion years old. The density of Pluto is very small, 2.0 gm/cc, which is consistent with a roughly half-and-half rock/ice composition. This density will not allow for long-lived radioactive elements, which allegedly are the source of Earth’s internal heat to provide for the continuous geological activity during Earth’s supposed 4.5-billion-year history. Nor is Pluto near any other large bodies that could raise tides within Pluto to heat its interior and thus drive surface geological activity as supposedly is the case with Jupiter’s large satellites. Hence, there ought not to be any significant geological activity sufficient to remove craters on Pluto’s surface.

Compounding this problem for a 4.5-billion-year age for the solar system is the fact that Pluto is located in a particularly crowded part of the solar system. Pluto orbits the sun in a region with many other large objects that are too small to be planets and are also orbiting the sun. Presumably, thus far we have found only the larger members of this second asteroid belt, the first belt being mainly between the orbits of the planets Mars and Jupiter. We would expect that for each of these bodies in this second asteroid belt there would be many more much smaller bodies. Therefore, Pluto ought to be undergoing impacts today at a higher rate than most other objects in other portions of the solar system.

Planetary scientists who are committed to belief in a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system are at a complete loss to explain the lack of craters on Pluto. But the situation is even bleaker for them. Pluto has a tenuous nitrogen atmosphere. This nitrogen is leaking away from Pluto’s atmosphere, so it must be continually replaced. One can claim that the unknown mechanism driving the geological activity on Pluto also is bringing nitrogen from Pluto’s interior to the surface where it is outgassed. But Pluto is a small body, and it has only a finite amount of nitrogen. It is possible that after billions of years that all of its nitrogen should have been depleted long ago.

There are mountains on Pluto’s surface that are 11,000 ft (3,300 m) high. The rock/ice composition of Pluto probably could support such a tall structure with Pluto’s modest gravity if Pluto’s interior is very cold. However, if Pluto is as warm and geologically active as inferred, then the rock/ice structure of Pluto could not support such mountains for long. Therefore, these mountains must be very young. All of these considerations demonstrate that Pluto is a very young object, far younger than the 4.5 billion years that most scientists assume.

Charon, Pluto’s largest satellite, offered stunning news too. Charon appears to have a few craters, but far fewer than expected. Its surface also is gashed by a large chasm, suggesting recent or ongoing geological activity. This, too, was unexpected in a solar system that is 4.5 billion years old.

We may yet find a few craters on Pluto’s surface, but those would be inconsequential to the conclusions that we can draw. It is very clear that Pluto is young, far younger than the billions of years generally assumed. While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists, this is something that we might expect if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible indicates. The preliminary results from the New Horizons space probe are good news indeed for the recent creation model.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

During his interview, Nye reportedly said,

That debate started with an offhanded comment I made on Big Think. I said, “If you want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't make your kids believe it.” And in lots of states, kids are taught that evolution is just one possible theory that explains how life came about, and that creationism is another.

We need these kids to be part of the future. We need them to innovate and change the world. But if you raise a generation of students who don't believe in the most fundamental idea in biology, it's a formula for disaster. This is against our national interest, and if you raise a generation like this, they're victims.

What Bill Nye is saying is that creationists can’t innovate or “change the world.” Well, he is obviously blatantly ignoring the many biblical creationists who can—and do—advance scientific knowledge and innovation every day. During our debate, I even gave him some compelling examples and introduced him to Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner that has saved millions of lives. Dr. Damadian is a biblical creationist, and he was certainly innovative! I also shared a video clip of Dr. Stuart Burgess, who has invented parts for NASA/ESA spacecraft. Dr. Burgess is also a biblical creationist and an innovative engineer.

So it is completely ridiculous and demonstrably untrue to claim that children and adults who are taught biblical creation won’t be able to innovate or change the world. By the way, our latest scientist to join Answers in Genesis, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, has a PhD in biology from Harvard University.

I’ve asked Bill Nye and other secularists many times if they can name one piece of technology that was developed because of a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. They still haven’t answered this question, and nor will they, because there aren’t any examples! Evolution is completely unrelated to technological innovation. As Dr. Damadian and Dr. Burgess clearly show, you don’t need to be an evolutionist to be an innovator!

And evolution is not “the most fundamental idea in biology,” as Nye says it is. As I pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, evolution is a way of explaining the origin of the universe and life naturalistically (atheistically). It is one framework through which to interpret the observational evidence. And far from being the foundation of biology, evolutionary ideas have done nothing to further our understanding of biology.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Now here is the problem. If there are intelligent beings on other planets, then they would have been affected by the fall of Adam because the whole creation was affected. So these beings would have to die because death was the penalty for sin. One day their planet will be destroyed by fire during God’s final judgment, but they cannot have salvation because that blessing is given only to humans.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, et al. #fundie answersingenesis.org

In short, the opening of Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey spends an hour (less with commercials) summarizing the naturalistic evolutionary view of the origin of life and all things, tricks out the story with colorful computer-generated graphics and photography, and dismisses any religious-based objections by echoing Bruno’s 16th century challenge that our view of God must simply be too small, thus inviting the theistic evolutionary view to become comfortable in the notion that God used a toolkit of star stuff to create us. (Read more about the problems with compromising the plain teachings of God’s Word with the fallible and unverifiable claims of evolution and billions of years in “10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution,” “Feedback: Theistic Evolution,” “Jesus, Scripture and Error: An Implication of Theistic Evolution,” and “Theistic Evolution: An Incoherent and Inconsistent Worldview?”)

The scientific method has led to the discoveries and technological leaps that shape our lives and our understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, when it comes to the topic of unobservable origins, mainstream scientists who believe big bang cosmology and molecules-to-man evolution think that the god-free framework they have invented is a factual reality that accurately and reliably describes a past they can never examine. They test their ideas about the past within their own concept of what the past was like, and they believe they are actually using the scientific method to make observations about the past.

Despite the admonition to “question everything” and to “reject” ideas that “don’t pass the test,” the fact that abiogenesis violates the fundamental laws of biology is ignored. Evolutionary blind faith in a “great mystery”—such as that invoked by Bill Nye in the recent Nye-Ham Debate—trumps the scientific method. Why? Because molecules-to-man evolution must have happened for Darwinian notions of origins to be true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Borrows from a Christian Worldview

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

What’s the “Best Way to Live?”

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

Do Jerks Survive?

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

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

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

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

The Golden Rule

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

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

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

All One Race

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye and Bananas

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

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

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

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

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

Dr. Russ Humphreys' #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creationists are trying to keep up with science . . .

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

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

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

Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[At the National Education Association teachers' convention in Florida. Emphasis in original.]

But what caused the biggest stir—and what had NEA officials making unreasonable demands on us—was AiG’s small <a href=http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/00-1-025>“gay marriage” booklet</a>. The NEA leadership demanded that the AiG booklet be moved to a back table. Apparently, some people were “offended by it.” Here’s how Tony Ramsek of our staff—who led our effort—explained it to me:

We received a press release from the American Family Association about a new NEA proposal that would “promote homosexual marriage in public schools.” Because of this new controversial proposal, AiG determined to actively engage this battle.

An official from the NEA leadership stopped by our booth. He requested/demanded that we move those gay marriage booklets to the back of our tables so they wouldn’t be in plain view. If we didn’t, he would take it to the next level—a not-so-veiled threat.

If I was to acquiesce to the humanists’ demands this time, what would be next? Surely sooner or later, someone would find our banners—or our creation message—to be offensive. If we backed down from preaching the whole counsel of God in this instance, it would not stop there.

What we were doing did not go against the NEA by-laws (we checked). So we decided to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

An NEA official came by again. This man was noticeably nervous, and repeated the request/demand that we move the gay marriage booklets to the back … or else face the consequences. With gentleness, I told him that we would not—and showed him the NEA by-laws.

I mentioned to this gentleman that we felt like the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks being asked to move to the back of an Alabama bus. I told him, “We will not go to the back of the bus. We will not move our booklets to the back.” And praise the Lord, we never heard back from them again.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Voyage Begins Again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

image

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.

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.

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.

Troy Lacey #fundie answersingenesis.org

This is just another example of a false dichotomy, linking disbelief in evolution to a decline in scientific literacy. We would claim just the opposite; it is a consequence of evolutionary indoctrination which stifles scientific inquiry. After all, creation has not been taught in public schools for decades.

Lured? It was Bill Nye who attacked creationists for teaching kids the truth about history. The debate was the result of creationists defending themselves from Bill Nye’s attacks. Second, what unfounded ideas and data?

Actually, what is stated in the above two sentences by Bill Nye is really what Bill Nye did. He used slide after slide covering many different topics to try to intimidate people into believing his worldview, in order to explain the various evidences he brought up with very little detail, and when refuted, he brought it up again anyway! Perhaps this is so people could not even begin to understand the underlying assumptions inherent in his arguments.

Although Bill Nye wanted to destroy Ken Ham, Mr. Ham wasn’t out to destroy him. Ken Ham wanted to faithfully respond to the agreed-upon debate question, and graciously but firmly challenge Mr. Nye and all those watching concerning the nature of the origins debate—one of a worldview conflict because of differing starting points for those worldviews. Mr. Ham also unashamedly proclaimed the gospel as he wanted to win Mr. Nye and any skeptic watching over to the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel message.

Interestingly, Bill Nye still hasn’t addressed this issue of the existence of logic. This was brought up by Ken Ham several times. Logic is a biblical concept and makes no sense in Bill Nye’s religion. Bill Nye’s humanistic worldview is materialistic in its outlook. So immaterial things like logic can’t exist in his religious perspective. He must cast aside his religion and borrow from a biblical worldview just to make his case against a biblical worldview!

Unknown author #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof.Stuart Burgess #fundie answersingenesis.org

When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.
Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

The Bible is scientifically correct when it states that divine supernatural power is required to create the universe (Genesis 1:1) and life (Genesis 2:7) and different kinds of creatures (Genesis 1:24). The Bible is also scientifically accurate that divine supernatural power is required to uphold all things (Colossians 1:17). Rather than being accused of superstition, the Bible should be commended for correctly identifying the areas of origins where a supernatural Creator is necessary.
Biblical Creation Is Not Anti-Science

Creationists are sometimes accused of ignoring scientific evidence and being anti-science. But belief in God in no way diminishes zeal for how life works. The great pioneer scientists of the 17th to 20th centuries were inspired by their belief in God. Likewise, modern-day scientists who are biblical creationists find their belief in a purposeful universe to be a help in their work.

Biblical creationists are always eager to learn from real scientific discoveries in every area of science. I personally have designed rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency and NASA using the latest scientific knowledge in physics and engineering. I have a patent on a special gearbox that was used on the world’s largest civilian spacecraft and have been awarded three national prizes for the development of technology for spacecraft.

The only “science” that creationists do not use is the speculative science of evolution that has nothing to do with useful operational science. Evolutionary ideas like “monkey-to-man charts” that supposedly chart human evolution are based on pure speculation and not useful to science and technology in any way.
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations

Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always “evolution did it” or “natural selection did it” without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.

This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2

The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.

When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, “Miss, you keep saying ‘evolution did it,’ but you never actually explain how evolution did it.” The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.

Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin’s finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science

Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.

Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was “junk” DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.

A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution’s Knowledge

When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand

I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a “god of the gaps.” He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a “magic wand.” He said that he has noticed how even the experts say “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying “evolution did it.”
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution

Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews

Biblical creation versus evolution is not “faith versus science,” but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator

In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say “God did it” for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase “God did it” is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.

If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin’s theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.

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.

John UpChurch #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Tragedy in Paris

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

David Wright #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

[This is an older article which was recently posted on AiG's Facebook page]

Here’s something you might find hard to accept: In the U.S. culture we are racially programmed, particularly in regard to the skin color issue. Because of our culture’s racist roots, because of the way the world thinks, because of the influence of Darwinian thinking, we have been programmed to look at the exterior rather than the interior of a person, and to make broad judgments based on what we see. Had you not been programmed that way in this culture, you wouldn’t see the differences as you do. Different cultures are programmed in different ways. Our biases and prejudice show themselves in different ways, but in every case it is the world and our sinfulness (rather than science and the Bible) that drives our personal racism.

I realize those are very strong words. You might not even agree with me. But the fact is, it’s true. We just go through our days making all sorts of assumptions and judgment calls based on outward appearances of skin tone, facial features, size, height, etc. It’s very hard to see through the programming because it seems to be such a natural part of the way we think. No one likes to admit it, but the consequences are too serious to ignore. We’ve been programmed, and that programming needs to be changed.

This is no surprise to God, of course. He is fully aware of the pressures and the influences that the world places upon us. But He also states very clearly that it doesn’t have to stay that way. Change can take place in our minds and our hearts:

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think. . . . so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (Romans 12:2–6).

If you want to solve the issue of racism in your own life, it’s very simple: You’ve got to believe the Bible. That’s the bottom line. You can spend millions of dollars trying to solve racist problems. You can pass new laws and institute all sorts of programs, but unless people believe the history in the Bible—unless our minds are renewed—we will never have the full picture of reality, and we won’t have the foundation that we need to make decisions that line up with truth rather than the lie.

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

“Equal Rights” for All But Christians"

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

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

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

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

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

image

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

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

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

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

(Video on site)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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.

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?

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).

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama needs to take heed of the warning God gives concerning those who do not walk in His light, but walk in their own light:

Who among you fears the Lord? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God. Look, all you who kindle a fire, who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled—This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isaiah 50:10–11)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

*Read our article on polygamy and the Bible.

Next page