| Web-cast questions and answers |
|
|
Web-cast Questions & AnswersOn 20 November 2002, a live web-cast featured Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham. Web visitors were encouraged to write in with their questions, which Dr Sarfati and Mr Ham answered during the broadcast. Although they responded to several dozen, there were simply too many questions to respond to them all. While we would like to give a detailed response to each one, it is simply not possible to do so. (It’s also worth noting for future broadcasts, that a short, to-the-point question has a lot more chance of being answered on a spoken broadcast than a long, rambling one, or one that says ‘What are your views about article “X”?’, or one that’s very open-ended.) Most of the questions submitted are already answered by articles on this Web site. We have listed some of the most common types of questions below, with links to articles on this site for more information. We hope this encourages you to make full use of the free information provided on this Web site (by visiting our Q&A index, and by using our ‘search’ engine). Evidence against evolution and for creationWe received many questions asking for the ‘best’ evidence for Creation, or the ‘best’ arguments against evolution (one type of ‘open-ended’ questions that are not very efficient for a Q&A radio format). For example:
While there are many good arguments that are worth presenting (some of which will be pointed out below), it is important to understand the distinction between the ‘evidence’ and how that evidence is interpreted. Please see the following articles: Several visitors also asked questions about arguments that creationists should not use. FossilsMost of the questions we received on fossils (including about whale evolution, and Archaeopteryx) are answered on our Q&A: Fossils page.
Please see ‘Q&A: Anthropology’ (this page also addresses Neandertals, Nebraska man, Lucy, Homo erectus, etc.).
Please see ‘Where are all the human fossils?’ (linked to from Fossils Q&A).
Here, the evolutionists are drawing numbers out of a hat. The nearest number we have to this comes from an anti-creationist, non-scientist called Schadewald who took the numbers of fossils found in a fossil graveyard BASIN and treated this as typical of the whole Earth. However, the fossil graveyard is a sedimentary basin where fossils would be concentrated. In fact, even granting the numbers of fossils the evolutionists claim, when we analyze the numbers closely, we find that the densities of living reptiles, for example, would actually not be unreasonable. Please see The Karoo Vertebrate non-problem (linked to from Fossils Q&A).
See other examples of ‘living fossils’ (on Fossils Q&A). Dinosaur-to-Bird evolutionSeveral people asked for our comments specifically on the ‘feathered dinosaur’ display currently in the Australian Museum. See Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘feathered dinosaur’ display. GeneticsFor answers to the most common questions about genetics (including on the human genome project), please see our Q&A: Genetics page.
Most people have 22 pairs of ordinary chromosomes plus the pair of sex chromosomes (XX or XY). Down’s Syndrome people have instead of a pair at 21, a triple, hence the term trisomy 21. But there is no new information, any more than two copies of an encyclopedia contain twice as much information. Here this results in an imbalance. Note that many reactions in the body require a precise sequence of enzymes — Down’s Syndrome people have an extra copy of the superoxide dismutase gene which breaks down the very reactive superoxide ion (O2–). Its product is peroxide (O22–), which is normally broken down by the next enzyme. But in this case, with the extra production, there is too much to cope with.
Indeed it does, because the sharp lifespan drops are after the population bottlenecks of the Flood and Babel. Please see Living for 900 years? and Decreased lifespans (linked to from Genetics Q&A).
Presumably you mean ‘DNA research’? Actually, DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe, and the message stored on it points to a message Sender. See Information: A modern scientific design argument (linked to from the Information Q&A page). To understand the implications of the Human Genome Project, see Genome Mania (linked to from Genetics Q&A).
As mentioned above, we have pointed out that the HGP has shown more problems for evolution. For example, while we already knew there were 3 billion ‘letters’ of information in the human genome, the HGP has uncovered new levels of complexity. And they’ve found uses in so-called ‘junk’ DNA, a term reflecting ignorance and evolutionary bias. In fact, that is one example of evolution hindering research into finding functions of important biological systems. This is covered in Refuting Evolution 2, pp. 122–125. Noah and the FloodAnswers to questions about where the water came from during the Flood, whether or not dinosaurs could have fit on the Ark, the existence of Noah’s Ark today, the global nature of the Flood, the migration of animals after the Flood, the survival of aquatic creatures and plants during the Flood, the ‘canopy theory’, and Ron Wyatt’s alleged finding of the Ark can be found in Q&A: Noah’s Ark and Q&A: Flood.
In addition to the above links which answer questions concerning the Flood, see In the days of Peleg and Searching for Moses, for questions about Biblical and Egyptian chronology. The Flood was obviously prior to the time of the pyramids, which could not have survived such a cataclysm, and are built on what are clearly Flood deposits.
For answers to your questions on the Ark, see above. To differentiate between natural selection and evolution, it’s vital to understand that real goo-to-you evolution requires an increase in genetic information. Natural selection does the opposite, by removing genetic information. See Muddy Waters. It’s hard to see how ‘natural disasters’ could be properly used to support evolution.
The Bible doesn’t say whether or not there were volcanoes before the Flood, therefore creationists are free to go with whatever evidence seems best.
First, this Christian needs to be reminded that we should use God’s unfallen Word to explain the creation we know to be cursed. Second, fresh water can float on top of salt water for quite a while (see How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive?), especially under pre-Flood floating forests. Third, there are too many of what are called ‘ephemeral markings’ on the tops of layers, i.e. features like ripple marks, raindrop marks and tracks, which would be quickly eroded, so certainly can’t last for millions of years. Therefore the next layer must have buried them rapidly.
We wouldn’t expect there to be any, not just because of the incredible power of such a massive, Earth-destroying cataclysm, but also because the Flood was intended to blot them out. See chapter 15 of the The Creation Answers Book.
Indeed, instincts are remarkable—see Wings on the wind. But note for the specific case of the Ark, God was not restricted to normal migration mechanisms. Eden and Pre-Flood hydrology
God created the Earth with water sources, and even now there is plenty of subterranean water. Also, we should not be dogmatic about there being ‘no rain before the Flood’. Genesis 2:5 describes the conditions existing before the creation of Man, and does not say these conditions persisted till the Flood.
Because salinity is steadily increasing, it’s most likely that the pre-Flood seas were not as salty as they are now. Actually, this is an indicator that the oceans aren’t nearly as old as the evolutionists claim—see Salty Seas. Also, as we mentioned above, we believe that the Bible doesn’t rule out rain before the Flood, so lots of today’s hydrological cycle could have been operational.
Again, water doesn’t necessarily mix evenly, and many large water bodies were supplied by rainfall or by melt-water at the end of the post-Flood ice age—see Mammoth: Riddle of the Ice Age linked from Mammoths Q&A.
This overlooks pre-Flood peat bogs and floating forest ecosystems. Please see Too much coal for a young earth?, hyperlinked from Q&A: Geology. Intelligent Design
See CMI’s Views on the ID Movement. Death and SufferingVisit Q&A: Death and Suffering for answers to questions such as:
You may have forgotten other attributes of God—His sovereignty and His justice/Holiness. For one thing, the Biblical cultures, like 70% of cultures today, were collective unlike the individualistic West, so all members were responsible in some way for the evils. Another thing, with the high levels of violence in the pre-Flood world, it’s likely that abortion and infanticide were rife, so the number of babies was possibly very low. Finally, God, unlike us, knows the ‘big picture’ of a greater good that can follow, and we can also be sure that the eternal judgment on the drowned babies would be just. See Why is there death and suffering?
Does it matter who killed Him? In the Old Testament, animals killed by man covered (Hebrew kaphar, ‘atone’) sin although didn’t take it away (Hebrews 10). In any case, Christ, who is a Divine Person, offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:27). Finally, must we understand everything about the method that an infinite God uses to forgive our sins to accept His forgiveness?
All three Persons of the Trinity were involved in creation, including the creation of Satan, (or rather the cherub who fell and became Satan). Why shouldn’t Satan be able to tempt in the vain hope that Jesus would fall for the temptation? Note the big difference between being tempted and yielding to the temptation.
If it’s not taught in the Bible, or logically deducible from propositions in the Bible, we don’t have to believe it. We see no Biblical evidence that Adam’s pre-Fall body lacked a circulatory system. Adam still needed to eat before the Fall (Genesis 1:29).
First of all, this Reverend uncritically accepts materialistic ‘dating’ systems over the plain teaching of the Word of God. God’s word is clear that the land animals were created on the same day as Adam, and air and sea creatures the previous day, not ‘long before’. Also, the Fall must have happened a few days after Creation week, before Cain was conceived. Further, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the various uses of ‘soul’ in the Bible. Sometimes it means a non-material aspect of man that survives death, but in others, the Hebrew word nephesh is used of the whole man, and also of vertebrate animals including fish. Also, animals and man were created vegetarian, and Isaiah chapters 11 and 65 talk about a restoration where the animals will not be carnivorous—wolf and lamb, lion and calf together. Significantly, both passages close with indications that this reflects a more ideal world and the current world does not: ‘They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’. These indicate that hurting, harming, and destroying animal life would not have been part of a ‘very good creation’. [See also The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe]
Yes, they did have hair, skin, and nails. To clarify, when we say there was no ‘death’ before Adam sinned, we are referring to the death of creatures the Bible calls nephesh chayyah. This term is translated ‘living soul’ when referring to humans, and is also used of land vertebrates and even fish, where it is translated ‘living creature’. Insects, plants and certainly individual cells are never called nephesh chayyah. It is important to use terms in the meaning that they would have had for their original audience, not read modern concepts of biological death into them. Also, programmed biological ‘death’ of cells called ‘apoptosis’ (which again is not death of a nephesh chayyah creature as a whole) has an important function in life, including the development of our digits in the womb—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory. Distant StarlightSee Q&A: Astronomy for answers to questions such as:
No. The ‘big bang’ idea purports that the sun came before the Earth, while the Bible says the Earth was created on Day 1, and the sun on Day 4. Evolution (along with long-age creation views) says that land animals evolved into birds and whales, but God’s Word says that He created sea and air creatures on Day 5, before He created the land creatures on Day 6. See also Two world-views in conflict. Note, the evolutionary/long age interpretation of the fossil record is a sequence of ages; the Biblical interpretation is a sequence of burial by Noah’s Flood and its aftermath.
No, at the event horizon, time stops.
Yes, Yes, and Yes; although we fail to see why this is a creation question. ;) Information
By definition, speciation is reproductive isolation, so there is a block against information exchange. We have noted a number of non-information-gaining changes that could result in isolation. See Q&A: Speciation.
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example).
A jumping transposon simply moves the already existing genetic information around, and duplication is just copying the same information. This question and the previous one are covered in Refuting Evolution 2 starting on page 104, and also in Q&A: Information. Hope your lecture went well!
Then you should be aware of Spetner’s reply to Max. Max’s example is totally irrelevant to evolution, because it’s a particular small designed mutational hotspot, so it can churn out many different antibodies that merely have to find something in the antigen to target. The mutations that find the antigen are reproduced. The differences between that and a real organism are:
For more information, there is a specific response The Unsuitability of B-Cell Maturation as an Analogy for Neo-Darwinian Theory. It would also be helpful to study the Weasel program to show how mutation/selection works only in very limited cases but ‘crashes’ for any realistic simulation of real organisms. All these are hyperlinked from Information Q&A.
It is prejudicial to oppose ‘science’ and creation by saying that ‘science’ has to have an answer. The information argument against evolution is real science! Usually, evolutionists ignore the problem by equivocating on the meaning of ‘evolution’ to expand it to mean all change. See Refuting Evolution 2, pp. 55 ff. But note that even Spetner, in his book Not by Chance, makes the point that in a complex world we may one day find that one mutation that adds a tiny bit of information. But for the neo-Darwinian theory to be credible, there should be hundreds of easily-accessible examples. So far, evolutionists have yet to produce one. ‘Science vs. Religion’
No, see ‘It’s not science’, Non-overlapping magisteria?. Dating methodsFor questions about the assumptions behind the various radiometric dating methods (including carbon dating), and their inaccuracies, see Q&A: Radiometric dating.
See The origin of old-Earth geology, Niagara Falls and the Bible and Lord Kelvin Revisited on the Young Age of the Earth.
Why do evolutionists ask such leading questions and resort to such ‘elephant hurling?’ Fact is, there are many examples of discordant dates (see Radioactive ‘Dating’ in Conflict), and others which fail when tested on samples of known historical age.
Yes, it is indeed true that C-14 is found in substances that are ‘dated’ millions of years old. Of course, if they were truly that old, all radiocarbon activity should have ceased. The usual excuse is contamination, but that is ruled out by the δ13CPDB check. See Dating Dilemma: Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone. DinosaursVisit our Dinosaur Q&A section for answers to questions such as:
The answers are there, but not the word ‘dinosaur’, mainly because it wasn’t invented till 1841. A description of an animal that probably was a sauropod is found in Job 40—NB its tail ‘like a cedar’. See Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?
Not sure about blood elements being found in ‘Sue’, but blood cells and hemoglobin were indeed found in T. rex bones—see Sensational dinosaur blood report [update: see more recent finds of blood vessels, Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”, “Ostrich-osaurus” discovery?: Shedding more light on the new startling find of soft tissue in a T. rex bone and Squirming at the Squishosaur.] GenesisFor questions on the ‘Gap Theory’, the allegedly ‘contradictory’ accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, the nature of the ‘firmament’, why evolution and creation can’t mix (‘theistic evolution’), the identity of Cain’s wife, the creation of angels and the Fall of Satan, the serpent in the Garden of Eden, see Genesis Q&A.
We don’t know—the Bible doesn’t specifically say what it was.
Chapter 2 of RE2 addresses this, as does Ken’s The Lie: Evolution and our Q&A page on Compromises [update: see Refuting Compromise] The main points to emphasize are the way ‘theistic evolution’ denies the authority of Scripture, and entails millions of years of death and suffering before sin. Some good Scriptural verses are the whole of Genesis, Romans 5:12–19, 8:20–22, 1 Corinthians 15:21–22,26,45.
This isn’t possible, because the days of Genesis 1 were described from man’s perspective, as is clear from the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. This command makes no sense unless the Creation days are identical in length to those of our working week. Additionally, there is the usual problem of millions of years of death before sin. I.e. the fossil record contains evidence of death, suffering, bloodshed, and disease (e.g. cancer). If the fossils are millions of years old (which the idea of long creation days from Earth’s perspective would have to imply) then all these ‘bad things’ existed before sin, and must be a part of what God calls ‘all very good’.
You’ll really have to ask the churches concerned. ;) Possibly because the leaders have already compromised with ‘science?’ Some don’t want to appear ‘divisive’—but then to be consistent they wouldn’t invite Christ since He said he would bring division (Luke 12:51)! Others might claim that a straightforward interpretation of Genesis is ‘narrow minded’, but then in such a pluralistic society as ours it’s also very narrow minded to proclaim that Jesus said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me’ (John 14:6).
Basically, what Ken said in the debate. Note how he stressed that the whole Christian message is sourced in the historical events of Genesis, and how all compromise views have millions of years of death and bloodshed before sin and when God called His finished creation ‘very good’. The doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus, the Last Adam, conquering death, ‘the last enemy’, depends on the physical death through sin of the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21–22,26,45). He also pointed out how Jesus taught on the doctrine of marriage by basing it on the history of the creation of mankind from ‘the beginning of creation’ not millions of years later, directly quoting from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (Matthew 19:3–6, Mark 10:6–9). By continually linking the reality of Genesis history to the Gospel, we often find that Christians see how foundational Genesis really is to faith and morality; i.e. one can’t separate these from real history. Many Christians have not previously thought about the issues very much. Conversely, we have also found professing Christians who have thought about it and still cling to evolution and death before the Fall. But in many of these cases, we find that the compromise doesn’t stop at Genesis—their doctrines or morality are also shaky. For example, one vocal academic theistic evolutionist interjector at one of our meetings turned out not to believe in personal life after death. Another leader of a theistic evolutionary group in Australia acknowledged that Jesus affirmed Genesis, but explicitly said that Jesus was mistaken about some things (so why not about John 3:16 also?). So discussing Genesis can be helpful, either by showing Christians that their faith is consistent both internally and with the ‘real world’; or by exposing previously hidden heresy.
We can’t prove a universal negative (i.e. ‘there are no other accounts that explain the origin of the 7 day week’). But we know of no secular reason for a seven-day week, unlike the day which is one rotation of the Earth on its axis, and the year which is one revolution of the Earth around the sun, and the month which is based on one revolution of the moon around the Earth (the synodic period or phase cycle that was observed from ancient times is 29.531 Earth days, so not an even multiple of seven. Even the sidereal period, the time for a complete orbit of the moon around the Earth, relative to an observer outside the solar system, is 27.322 Earth days, so once again is not a multiple of seven.).
Ice AgePlease visit our Ice Age Q&A page for answers to questions such as:
Geology
Indeed, we have shown that Uluru makes perfect sense in a Creation/Flood model. E.g. it is made from arkose sandstone which contains fresh feldspar crystals, yet feldspar easily weathers into clay. So it can’t have been exposed for millions of years. See our video, Raging Waters. AliensW.O., Pasadena, MD, USA It’s possible that other ‘solar systems’ (i.e. planets orbiting a star) exist, and they would have been created on Day 4 of Creation Week. Astrobiology is the study of extra-terrestrial life, and there is no conclusive evidence for it. See Q&A: Alien Life for more information, and also below for Biblical reasons against the case for ET life. Additionally, the book Alien Intrusion would be very helpful.
The Earth was created on Day 1, while the sun, moon and stars (plus any planets the stars might have) were created on Day 4. Adam’s sin resulted in God’s Curse on the whole creation (Romans 8:20–22), so would have affected the e.g., Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnated on Earth alone, took on human nature, died for the sins of those He has the ‘kinsman-redeemer’ relationship with (Isaiah 59:20, Hebrews 2:11–18), then ascended to the right hand of God the Father. He did not take on Vulcan or Klingon nature. And He will have only one Bride, the church, for all eternity. Not an Earth church bride, a Vulcan church bride, and so on. Racism
Sure—check out our Racism Q&A page! Vestigial Organs
Please visit our Vestigial Organs Q&A page. It’s up to the critic to tell us his problems with the answers, not simply make assertions and misrepresent our responses as being merely ‘God created it to …’ when we have documented functions of these. As we say, such silly questions are standard fare on evolutionary newsgroups, which is one reason we advise against wasting time on them. Young Earth
See ‘young’ age evidence for some ideas of evidence consistent with a world far younger than the oft-touted 4.5 billion years. But note again that we don’t claim scientific proof of age. Thermodynamics and order
Sure—visit our Thermodynamics and Order Q&A page. Creation Evangelism
Actually, it is good to pit them against each other, because they are the only alternatives. But this is a very open-ended question and would depend on the situation. E.g. an engineer may be open to talking about the machinery of life, e.g. the ATPase motor. Others may be concerned at the breakdown of ethics, so it would be appropriate to ask how ethics can be justified if we are just rearranged pond scum. Misc
Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 both cover different topics, so are both recommended reading. RE should be read before RE2.
Check out Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells?.
Please read over our ideas here.
There may be, but what’s the point? There is also documented proof of cannibalism and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans. Homosexual acts go against God’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh—see Genesis 1 and 2, endorsed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6. This violation of God’s design is the reason He has declared homosexual acts to be an ‘abomination’. Romans 1:26–27 says they are the result of man turning his back on God. See Creationism and the problem of homosexual behavior and Spong and Morality [update: see also responses to critics Objections to homosexuality article and The disingenuous and anti-Christian nature of ‘gay rights’ rhetoric]
Thanks for giving us another opportunity to let people know about the ‘arguments’ we think creationists should stay away from (including this one).
Indeed, Genesis 1:29–30 shows that both humans and animals were originally created vegetarian, while Isaiah 11 and 65 show this to be true in the Restoration as well. After the Fall, (which included a curse on the ground), some animals started to eat others. Humans were permitted to eat meat after the Flood. Jesus ate the Passover lamb and also ate fish after His resurrection. Mark 7:19, Romans 14 and Col. 2:16 make it clear that there is no sin in eating meat and that we should not judge people because they do or don’t. See Living (and eating) like a caveman?.
See our History Q&A page and It’s not science.
See Creation: where’s the proof? for some ideas about how to demonstrate the role of presuppositions. Also, Ken’s book The Lie: Evolution instructively discusses his own experiences as a science teacher. At first he used the traditional creationist evidentialist approach, but found that evolutionist teachers would reinterpret the evidence he presented. But then he switched to the presuppostionalist approach, teaching the kids that all data is interpreted in a framework governed by underlying presuppositions. After that, the evolutionist teachers complained that now the kids were reinterpreting their evidence by uncovering their presuppositions!
See this article for some ideas in general, and this one which addresses specific specious arguments made by Don Stoner (a Hugh Ross disciple) against literal days.
A television channel seems beyond the funding capabilities of the creation movement at present. We do, however, encourage our supporters to use their local public access channels as venues to show our videos (e.g. From a Frog to a Prince, etc). And we also utilize this Web site to counter efforts put out by the secular media (e.g. see our response to the PBS series, Evolution).
Actually, the Hebrew word translated ‘bird’ in most English translations is oph, and means any winged or flying creatures. There are different ‘kinds’ of flying creatures: mammals (e.g. bats), reptiles (e.g. pterodactyls), and birds (in the modern sense of feathered animals), all covered by oph. As far as the ‘Genesis kind’ or baramin (from Hebrew bara=create, min=kind) is concerned, within the broad category ‘birds’ there were of course many such groups which would only reproduce ‘after their kind’. E.g. parrots would never become, or interbreed with, finches.
The Web site TrueOrigins does a good job of staying on top of responding to Talk.Origins, as does our Countering the Critics page. It’s also notable how many of their articles are written by people totally unqualified in the area, e.g. computer programmers.
The ‘problems with evolution’ idea is quite broad. See this article for some ways to narrow it down.
These skeptics are bluffing—this has absolutely nothing to do with multiverses. Quantum mechanics shows that electrons have wave properties, and this is one aspect of it. It also has to do with the Uncertainty Principle, where it’s not possible to measure both energy and time perfectly accurately. But the more mass/energy the object has, the less time it’s able to temporarily ‘disappear’. Universes are a lot bigger than electrons! Multiverses by their very nature are untestable, so are not part of real, operational science. But with materialists, anything goes if it excludes God!
‘Quantum fluctuations’ sounds very learned but it’s actually an atheistic bluff. Quantum mechanics underlined most of my doctoral work. The questions to ask are: what was there to fluctuate, and why did it produce a universe rather than something else, and at a particular time? See the The Creation Answers Book Ch. 1 for more information (based on If God created the universe, then who created God?).
Actually, the term ‘kid’ is not an evolutionary term. In fact, we see it as an acceptable colloquialism for children. Note that the meanings of words are determined by usage, not derivation or archaic meanings, or by unwarranted restriction of the semantic field (e.g. claiming ‘kid’ means only baby goat).
Yes, sadly. But our Dr Don Batten’s recent visit enabled him to train at least some Japanese pastors, giving them the weapons to demolish the state religion from within.
We doubt whether an ‘unbiased’ poll is possible. Many scientists who say they believe in evolution actually have nothing to do with it in their work, so it’s more likely they believe due to academic peer pressure.
Please see Where are all the people?
It’s possible that the cubit (distance from elbow to outstretched fingertips) was larger, but we shouldn’t base explanations on words such as Nephilim where the meaning is unclear. The KJV has ‘giants’ because of the influence of the Vulgate gigantes, in turn influenced by the Septuagint γιγαντης (also gigantes). But the word seems related to naphal, ‘to fall’.
That is a leading question—please see Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? What about the iridium layer?
GUT is one aim of theoretical physics—to unify the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. But this is an aspect of operational science, not origin, so there is no need for creationists to refute it.
Please see Maintaining Creationist Integrity. Also, keep a lookout for Ken Ham’s article in the March 2003 Creation magazine, where he explains more about the important difference between evidence and interpretations of this evidence, and answers the anguished complaint that articles such as our Don’t Use page ‘have taken away “our” evidence!’
I must admit, I can’t see where the eye fits into this (is it a misprint perhaps?). But note, the phrase ‘independently evolved’ is evo-speak for independently arose, and creationists would interpret the evidence as ‘independently created’. The same is said about eyes, for sure, and this is also a problem for common-ancestry evolution.
Not that this is a scientific journal, but the Bible indicates there was one pre-Flood continent (Genesis 1:9). See also Plate Tectonics Q&A.
Everywhere—see Creation: Why It Matters and Why won't they listen? Conversely, what doctrine of Christianity is not found, at least in embryonic form, in Genesis 1–11? See also the comments on Billy Graham and Charles Templeton below.
You’re referring to Charles Templeton—see The slippery slide to unbelief. A famous evangelist goes from hope to hopelessness and the update Death of an apostate. We suggest (based on 1 John 2:19) that he never had genuine saving faith to begin with, and his own writings indicate that it was more an emotional experience. As those articles show, Templeton’s objections were actually excuses, and should have been very easy to answer—if people like Graham had tried! Also, as this review from Tekton Apologetics ministries shows, even many of his non-creation-related objections were merely ‘arguments from outrage’, chronological snobbery and dogmatic rejection of miracles.
Alas, Billy Graham, for all the good he’s done in the past, has never taken a strong stand on Biblical creation. He has to live with the fact that his former colleague Charles Templeton apostatized, using the excuse that people like Graham never tried to answer his objections about Creation, the Fall and the Flood, as we said above. Many people can’t live with the ‘cognitive dissonance’ if they are told that the Bible and the real world can’t mix. They either apostatize like Templeton, or console themselves by convincing themselves of the philosophically fallacious idea that they are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA), or, as is our prayer, realize that the real world actually makes the best sense with Biblical presuppositions! It also seems to explain why his ministry is less effective now than it was decades ago—the culture has shifted foundation. Back then, our culture was like the Jews in Acts 2 which had some respect for the Bible and acceptance of the fact of a Creator, so Graham’s preaching method, like Peter’s, simply preaching Christ as Savior, was very effective. But now our culture is more like the Greeks of Acts 17, which has no respect for the Bible or widespread acceptance of a Creator, and who (largely for this reason) reject the Resurrection as foolish babbling. Paul therefore went back to the fact of a Creator who is also Judge; Graham seems to still think that Peter’s methods in Acts 2 will work for a culture like the Athenians. See Why Won’t They Listen? (formerly Creation Evangelism for a New Millennium). The Pope believes in theistic evolution, although some Roman Catholics are still creationists. Of course, as our Statement of Faith states, ‘The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.’ Someone can believe in a literal creation, but if he trusts in a false gospel, he is still condemned to an eternity in hell. That’s the bad news, but here's the good news.
Depends. If it’s an honest questioner sincerely looking for answers, no. But if they are raised by people who should know better, then yes. A good example is the many anti-creationists on Internet debate groups, which is why we advise against wasting time in such groups. |