Feedback archiveFeedback 2019

Equal airtime to deep time?

Published: 26 October 2019 (GMT+10)
soapbox123rf.com

Should CMI give equal airtime to ‘billions of years’ in our media and events? Bevan F. from New Zealand writes:

Hi all, hope you are doing well.

My parents are big fans of Creation.com so well done on the site. For myself, I don’t agree with the world view that the earth is 6,000 years old. I have listened to hours and hours of debate and made up my mind. Because it’s not a gospel issue—rather an internal church conversation it’s not debated a whole lot.

I would like to point out that there are some mistakes on your website. Firstly, the URL https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth. It states that evolutionists believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What about the Christians that believe that? It misrepresents the ‘other half’ of the faith (badly).

If you could look at changing the way you represent the Christian faith I would be appreciative of that.

Also, it would be great if you could get the other side of the coin shown at the events. It would give participants the opportunity to think for themselves.

Thanks

Bevan

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

Dear Bevan,

Thanks for writing in. Fair enough; you don’t agree with us. Is there anything specific that convinced you the young-earth creation view was wrong? I’d be interested to hear, and perhaps respond to it.

This issue isn’t debated a whole lot? It’s not the frequency with which people debate the issue that matters (that will be different depending on the circles you walk in); it’s the importance of the debate that matters. That’s where we fundamentally disagree. We think it matters a great deal, for both the integrity of the Gospel and the spiritual health of the church: Creation: Why it Matters.

The “mistake” you claim of us is no mistake at all; evolutionists do indeed believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Failure to mention non-evolutionists or Christians who also believe that doesn’t mean we’re saying that only evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Think of it like this: Matthew 28:1 says that two Marys went to Jesus tomb on the first Easter morning; he mentions no other women. Luke 24:10 says that two Marys, a Joanna, and other women went to the tomb that Sunday morning. Do Matthew and Luke contradict each other? Of course not! Matthew mentioning only two women doesn’t mean he said that only two women went to the tomb; his silence allows for more women to have been present. Matthew simply didn’t want or need to mention the other women for the purposes of his account. Likewise, in a book entitled “Refuting Evolution”, it’s not exactly surprising that it doesn’t focus on Christians who reject evolution but accept deep time.

Moreover, we do acknowledge the existence of long-age Christians. Here is just one example among many: Common ground with old-earth creationists?. And in that article I explicitly acknowledge that there are genuine Christians who believe in ‘billions of years’ (see also Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved? and Can compromisers really be saved?).

Still, we think Christians who believe in ‘billions of years’ are dangerously wrong: Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important?. We believe the Bible teaches a history of the world that contradicts the standard ‘billions of years’ history of the world, and that trying to marry ‘billions of years’ with the Bible fatally undermines the Gospel. Why? Two of the most important reasons are that Jesus taught a history of the world that conflicts with billions of years (Mark 10:6: ‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?), and that human death before human sin fatally undermines Jesus’ death and resurrection as the solution for sin and death (The good news without the bad news is no news at all!). I believe in a perfectly reliable Jesus who saves me from sin and death. Don’t you? If so, then you might want to reconsider whether ‘billions of years’ is a belief worth holding on to.

You want us to give equal airtime to the other side of the debate at our events? Umm, no. Why? Well, I suggest trying to be fair: why not also ask long-agers to give us equal airtime in their media? Oh, wait; they’ll never do that in this climate! Why not? They think we’re idiots, psychos, and liars. Indeed, Dawkins won’t even debate a creationist precisely because he says that would give us equal airtime with him (World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge). The fact is that neither side needs to give equal airtime to the other at their own events. If you don’t like the fact that in certain circles we get the final word (though a clear minority compared to the airtime ‘billions of years’ ideas get), might I suggest taking the beam out of your own eye before attending to the supposed speck in our own.

Let me make this clear; perhaps the most important part of our ministry is calling the church back to fidelity to the Bible’s whole history of redemption right from Genesis. It’s only in that history of redemption that the Gospel makes sense. Asking us not to represent Christianity that way is simply to ask us to give up our work. We won’t do that. We can’t. As Luther famously responded to the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason … my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”

Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle
Creation Ministries International

Bevan responded:

Hi Shaun, thanks for the reply. Some thoughts:

In terms of sharing the stage, many times old age creationists like Hugh Ross has spoken at atheist conferences. They invite him but not young earth creationists because young earth does not have a scientific basis. The arguments for young earth are all based around theories that try to fit a square peg into a round hole. The bible has proven its worth and accuracy by not denying any new real provable scientific find on the earth’s history. I have listened to hours and hours of debating from both sides and honestly can say YEC have no decent argument.

Pushing out marketing trying to show that young earth is the only game in town is not helpful for the gospel. You are putting up a barrier by saying ‘unless you believe in this doctrine you can not believe’. This is not a gospel issue but is still important because it effects people’s worldview.

Here is (just) 3 of the reasons for my belief (there are many more):

1. The word for day Yom in Hebrew can be a very long finite period of time therefore defaulting to 6 literal days is not the correct way to read the text. Also, reading of the entire bible is very important to ensure you are evaluating consistently (see also book of Job backing up the Genesis account).

2. There is no 8th day - there was no evening on the 7th day. So what day are we in now? Your point about OEC ‘fatally undermining the bible’ is utter nonsense. Nothing in OEC undermines anything in the bible. Please name something so I can get a sense of where you are coming from.

3. From what I have seen the theory that YEC is true came from a position of fear (of losing faith or disproving the bible). So the background of your belief is fear of science, and yet you are going around teaching this ‘science’ to others. Doesn’t make sense. YEC has no real science to back it up in any meaningful way.

To discover these truths I did something really simple: I went back to the bible. I forgot my pre-conceived beliefs and I simply read it for what it’s telling me. As mentioned I also listened to hours of debates on both sides and from that I again went back to the text. The false teaching we have nowadays is an American invention started in the 1800’s claiming to be a ‘new revelation’. The only revelation we have is God’s word and that hasn’t changed.

I hope you find this helpful and you are willing to think for yourself and listen to both sides. If not you are intentionally avoiding possible change and keeping your truth as the truth. I have come out of the bondage (my words) of YEC. After realising how ridiculous it is frankly a little embarrassing and I am happy I never publicly admitted to the belief.

Sorry didn’t understand your Mary story, but you tried.

We are saved by repentance and faith so I hope this email comes across as from brother to brother in the faith.

All the best,

Bevan

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

Dear Bevan,

Some thoughts in response.

First, how seriously do you think atheists take Ross’ belief in special creation? The only reason they may give him a modicum more civility than us (to his face?) is that he accepts their timeline for the history of nature. But I can guarantee you, many of those atheists think that he’s playing fast and loose with the Bible to hold to billions of years.

Second, “pushing out marketing”? You do realize we can simply turn that sort of pejorative back around on the likes of Hugh Ross, right?

Third, I honestly don’t know how you could interpret me like this: “You are putting up a barrier by saying ‘unless you believe in this doctrine you can not believe’.” I said the exact opposite, and I even emphasized the exact opposite:

Moreover, we do acknowledge the existence of long age Christians. Here is just one example: Common ground with old-earth creationists?. And in that article I explicitly acknowledge that there are genuine Christians who believe in ‘billions of years’ (see also Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved? and Can compromisers really be saved?).

How do you expect me to treat your response as a good faith response if you attribute to me the exact opposite of what I actually said? Yes, I went on to say that deep time fatally undermines the Gospel. But people can hold inconsistent ideas in their head; people can believe the Gospel and deep time at the same time.

Fourth, as to your reasons for OECism, the ’yom can be indefinite time periods’ and ‘Day 7 continues’ arguments have been dealt with on the website: see Genesis 1: YÔM ≠ eon and God’s rest in Hebrews 4:1–11. Yom can’t mean ‘an indefinite time period for the numbered days of Genesis 1 because Genesis 1:2–5 defines the ‘one day’ (yom echad) of Genesis 1:5 (and thus all the other numbered days of Genesis 1) as a nighttime–daytime (dark–light) period. And no, Day 7 doesn’t continue to today; God’s rest which began on Day 7 continues to today. Say I rest from Saturday until Monday; does that mean Monday is actually still Saturday, since the rest I started has continued for more than 24 hours? Of course not. Day-age theory is a serious lexical blunder that doesn’t even respect the event sequence of either Genesis 1 (plants and earth before the Sun; birds before dinosaurs) or deep time (Sun before earth and plants; dinosaurs before birds), let alone the absolute timeframes of each idea.

Fifth, you said: “Your point about OEC ‘fatally undermining the bible’ is utter nonsense. Nothing in OEC undermines anything in the bible. Please name something so I can get a sense of where you are coming from.” I named two ways OECism does this in my last response, with argumentation supplied in the links:

“Two of the most important reasons are that Jesus taught a history of the world that conflicts with billions of years (Mark 10:6: ‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?), and that human death before human sin fatally undermines Jesus’ death and resurrection as the solution for sin and death (The good news without the bad news is no news at all!). I believe in a perfectly reliable Jesus who saves me from sin and death. Don’t you? If so, then you might want to reconsider whether ‘billions of years’ is a belief worth holding on to.”

Sixth, you list as a reason for your OEC belief an armchair analysis of our motives for holding our views. Why on earth would that be evidence for OEC? That’s called the genetic fallacy. Even if we held our position out of fear, it doesn’t prove anything about its truth or falsehood. The Bible motivates our beliefs: namely that an honest, studied, and heartfelt belief that the Bible conflicts with deep time, and we should believe the Bible rather than human extrapolations of physical processes into some deep and unwitnessed ‘prehistory’. And really, why else would anyone adopt such a position in a culture that regards deep-time belief almost as a test for rationality? Indeed, you prove my point: you regard YEC belief as “bondage” and “embarrassing” (I’ve written on that too: Why would Christians be hostile to biblical creation?).

Now, do I think there are scientific considerations that support our views? Yes (Age of the earth). But I don’t think they’re determinative, in part because scientific considerations are not the baseline against which our reconstructions of the past using physical evidence are measured (though they certainly have their place). The Bible is the baseline (Biblical history and the role of science, Historical science and miracles, and Deep time doesn’t make sense!). Until you understand that, and understand our exegetical basis for our views, you won’t understand why we do what we do. You’ll continue to rail against us for ‘rejecting the science’, as if that settles the dispute about how we should use science to reconstruct the past. You believe in miracles, in creation as well as in redemption, just as we do. Maybe it’s time to open your eyes to the notion that more creation miracles have happened in the cosmos than just the biological ones.

Don’t think our approach of starting with the Bible is somehow unscientific. In fact, it is no different from the way long-age evolutionists handle the ‘scientific’ data. Rocks, fossils, strata, landscapes, stars, etc are observed scientific facts but they do not come with a story attached to them, or a date. The dates and story presented to us come from the academic community’s belief system which denies God created, denies the global Flood happened, and asserts that present-day geological processes have always operated as they currently do. No matter what evidence is discovered and how powerfully it supports the biblical account, the scientific community’s commitment to naturalism is not negotiable. See for example Faith and Facts.

Finally, I used the Gospel resurrection narratives to illustrate my point that: “Failure to mention non-evolutionists or Christians who also believe that doesn’t mean we’re saying that only evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old.” Just because Dr Sarfati didn’t talk about OECs in Refuting Evolution doesn’t mean he is ignorant of them. Indeed, he has written a book-length refutation of OEC Hugh Ross’ ideas: Refuting Compromise. I commend that book to you.

Shaun Doyle

Creation Ministries International

Helpful Resources

Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $15.00
Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $10.00
The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $35.00
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
From
US $3.50

Readers’ comments

Philip P.
I hope this helps you to take the blinkers off Bevan
Philippus S.
There are people who calls themselves christian and then there are real Christians. Without Genesis and believing it, you can never be a Christian. That is the simple answer to Bevan F. from New Zealand. So evolutionists and self proclaimed christians who believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old are wrong. it is as simple as that. If you do not believe Gen 1:1  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" ; you do not believe in Gods word and you are a follower of Satan point period. You are for Christ or you are antichrist nothing more nothing less. So again Bevan is wrong by saying "Because it’s not a gospel issue—rather an internal church conversation it’s not debated a whole lot." Real Christian do not debate Gods word the just believe it, we do not need to dabte it we know it is true!
Bevan M.
Terrible letters by Bevan from New Zealand, he sounds like an atheist to me!
I wish he would change his name!
Geoff C. W.
Dear Bevan.
Dear oh dear. There's so much here, and Shaun Doyle has dealt with much of it. To that I add...
I'm wondering what sort of debates you've spent hours listening to, and who was involved. And have you added to that at least half an hour of reading articles on this website (it doesn't look like it). It doesn't take long to figure out what's going on here. See Mr Doyle's links.
As for science, no matter what you've heard, you need to be aware that there is no known scientific fact that contradicts the Biblical account of creation, but there as a plethora of scientific facts that contradict the atheistic ideas of 'the big bang', and evolution. Here are a few (all are on this stie), and while you're thinking about these, see if you can come up with a fact that contradicts the Bible.
'The big bang' contradicts the 1st Law of thermodynamics (something from nothing - in fact, EVERYTHING from nothing). The law of biogenesis contradicts the idea that life began in a lifeless swamp. The ubiquitous loss-of-DNA-information through mutation contradicts the idea that the enormous amounts of new information needed for evolution of kinds (this website warns against switching between different definitions of 'evolution') could be generated by mutation is at all possible. There's carbon 14 showing up where it shouldn't; blood vessels, DNA and so on showing up in dinosaur bones which are supposed to have been at least 65 million years old; polystrate tree fossils; the earth's geology and topography; the fossilrecord; etc; etc; etc.
Now it's your turn. One scientific fact that contradicts the Bible (miracles aside). While you're still thinking, you might like to at least look at this article on the website:
https://creation.com/useful-idiot-who-me
Listen to your parents.
Jim M.
Great example by Shaun Doyle of how to respond calmly to those who seem unable (or unwilling?) to comprehend clearly stated points. This is also a good reminder that it is not a lack of information that prevents people from acknowledging the reliability of the Bible. We are in a spiritual battle.
Ephesians 6:12
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.
Prayer with fasting is a necessity for the advancement of GOD'S Kingdom.
Wayne O.
Sad to say but it seems true that Bevan fears man more than he does God. How else can an observer of the dialogue between Bevan and Shaun see it when Bevan repeatedly dismisses all Shaun says without attempting to grasp it or investigate it. His mind is made up and he is running with the 'hounds'.

And, it is amusing in one way but sad in another that Bevan throws up the old canard that trusting the Word of God on Origins only arose in the 1800's, Anyone who says that is blindingly ignorant of history - both Christian and non-Christian history. For Christian history, consider Martyn Luther and John Calvin (though there are many more) who the LORD our God used mightily to bring Reformation to the Church. They both trusted the Word of God on Origins and would fall into the category of Bevan's much maligned YECs.
Jay Zeke M.
It never ceases to amaze me how much OECs argue like atheists. Always ranting about the science without actually explaining exactly HOW they think science supports them. Always painting "Young" Earth Creationists as irrational, scared, dumb etc. When I find an OEC that argues from the plain teachings of scripture, like a "Young" Earth Creationist, I'll be able to personally ask Jesus the best argument against deep time, because the shock will kill me...
James K.
Genesis is the easiest and most straightforward book of the Bible to interpret. To make it as convoluted as OECs have it, takes a lot of literary acrobatics. If they could twist the most straightforward book of the bible then they could mold the more obscure passages to communicate whatever they want (even to encourage sinful behaviour), and that is why the OEC interpretation is the gateway to heresy.
Chris L.
Hi Bevan
Old age earth belief is not a scientifically proven fact it is an interpretation based on a world view. The same evidence can be interpreted Bibically. Both interpretations have some validity, but one outstrips the other.
However if you believe in God, how can you explain Exodus 20:11. Was God just using a white lie so the Jews had a day off. Not the holy God whom I know.
God bless you, Chris
Phillip B.
This is my third time to present my point of view on this subject the other times were on articles regarding scriptural integrity which I most fully support as in 2 Tim 3:16 and the many other verses regarding scriptural integrity and the faithfulness of God and his Word are all sovereign to me.The gospel as it's represented in Romans along with the Holy Spirit: is what convicted me of sin those 43 years ago verses like Rom 5:19 which states "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man Jesus the Christ the many will be made righteous. I believe that the creation of the Heavens and the Earth as described in the book of Genesis ch 1:1-2 is a separate creation than that of the six days of the creation on earth. That God having existed eternally before the creation of human kind existed somewhere or at least the Angelic kingdom also created by God pre-existed the creation of humanity by at least tens of thousands of years and that's before the fall of the Devil and his cohorts. These Angels I believe existed on an earlier formed planet. I believe that as God formed the natural laws I doubt he altered the speed of light emitted from the stars and thus the age of the created universe is possibly fathomable but different from the 6,000 years or so of Gods creation on the Earth. This is different to what you claim some people believe on the creation.
Tas Walker
I hesitated to post your comment because you promote a gap theory, a previous creation, unorthodox ideas about the fall of the angels and where they lived, plus you hold to an age of the earth different from the biblical age. We have written many articles showing why these ideas are not correct, and for this reason I was planning not to publish your post. However, this will give me the opportunity to mention again some of the articles that deal with the errors you raise.
Creation compromises--the Gap Theory
The Gap Theory and Idea with Holes
The Gap Theory Revisited
Genesis 13 Undermines the Gap Theory
Miss Yvonne R.
Eight day ? - existing following the seventh day until the present. What an extraordinary mind this man must have. How has he been influenced in his life when his parents are appreciating the quality of the Creation Magazine? There are those who are not able to discern between rubbish for the rubbish bin and recyclables for the recycling bin or they are not bothered to be sensible. My prayers are for GOD in HIS mercy to direct Bevan in the way, the truth and the life of the LORD JESUS. Bevan needs to place JESUS CHRIST first then he will be set free from putting trust in his own understanding and those he listens to. We cannot comprehend without the HOLY SPIRIT. Trusting human perception always causes confusion.
Norman P.
So many debates of this kind reveal a spiritual blindness, resulting from a humanistic attitude to God and his word. We have to recognize that: ‘… the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). Our relationship to Christ-crucified in the real-time present is the key to understanding these things, and it's by the Spirit, with the mind of Christ, not by carnal reasoning alone, which for His own wise reasons God has determined to lay aside the wisdom of men (read 1 Corinthians chapter 1). It was predictable, and necessary in a way, that such grand delusions we see today would arise. But to know and understand God's truth as set out in Scripture (with the added timely mercy of apologetic ministries sch as CMI), trumps human extrapolations, and brings such a sense of joy and peace, causing us to worship our Creator. He will have the last word in the end, and all shall bow before Him .
Melvyne C.
“Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. And he said, ‘Hear my words: When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’ And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.” (Num 12:5-9)
Brother Bevan, has the God of Sinai entrusted “all his house” to you and spoke “face to face” with you and Hugh Ross? Have you written evidence by God that what he wrote in stone is fake law? If so, then your God fakes divine law.
How two-faced of such a God to say publicly he created in six days when on his authority (presumably) you say he means 13.8 billion years of days?
How weak of your God to have to rely on science to improve his word?
A question, brother Bevan; will I go to heaven believing God created in six days, the commandments and the teaching of the Jesus/God of Sinai, and on whom Satan makes war on (Rev 12:17). Yes or No.
Tell me, brother Bevan, if you enter heaven and see the ark of the Ten Commandments (Rev 11:19) what will be your first words when “face to face” with the testimony of Jesus/God of Sinai both in writing and in person?
Remember, brother Bevan, at Mount Sinai, the Holy Trinity publicly 'admitted' to such a belief being good for us. How embarrassing of your God to make the lawful statement: he created in six days.
Bruce K.
Quoting Bevan,

“For myself, I don’t agree with the world view that the earth is 6,000 years old.”

It’s not a world view, it’s a biblical view. OEC is a world view of scripture.

I pray that God will remove the veil of this corrupted world for your view and open your mind and heart to Him and the true meaning of his Word.
Albie D.
I have encountered the "i have listened to hours and hours" and 'I have all the creation videos" even from from a faculty head at university, without being able to point out a single example of unscientific evidence from CMI. Please Bevan, be clear in supplying us with all the unscientific evidence. Asserting something without backing it up with factual data is the "paper tiger" method. It looks like something until you put it to the test. Being able to trust the Creator who exactly says what He means and meaning exactly what He says is definitely no form of bondage, it is joyous freedom. Living in the largest meteorite impact site in the world (Vredefort S.A.) , i marvel everyday at the obvious massive watery catastrophe during the Flood time.(Courtesy Tas Walker and Johan Smit) Being able to see the Vaal river formed at that time, with the embankment erosion tempo supporting a river of a few thousand years and not millions or billions of years, fills me with absolute Hope. Seeing with my own eyes the results of massive destruction during the Flood, corresponds perfectly with the Biblical account. It also affirms the Grace of supplying a way out with the Ark, pointing to The Way out via Christ the Creator Himself.
Letting God use my mouth to open the eyes, minds and logical reasoning of people instead of regurgitating the the widely held long age belief that is based on assumptions, is the greatest Honour. Being able to aid God's people in also loving Him with our intellect is special beyond words. Keeping in mind that He never looked for the consensus of anyone, but only that of His (and our) Father, is what keeps me doing what i do. I really pray that you see the importance of the historical Truth from Genesis to revelation. Love in Christ.
Martyn M.
I empathise with Beven since overwhelmingly the scientific world endorses deep time and regards Young Earth Creationists as irrational, equivalent to Flat Earth believers. The big hurdle is not simply the rational arguments for a Biblical young earth but courage to stand against overwhelming odds and ridicule. BTW I like Geoff C. W and others comments.
David G.
I get the impression that Bevan has adopted a materialist meta-frame from which to mount his argument; rather than a scriptural meta-frame. What's a meta-frame? Its what Plantinga calls a 'first philosophy', that is, what is fundamentally real. From a scriptural meta-frame we know that material is dependent upon personhood: vis, the will of the triune God who relates in love. Bevan seems to found his critique on a materialist preconception where the material cosmos is fundamental to reality and all else depends upon it. I'm not saying that he does this, but he seems to. Thus he prioritises materialist-framed hypotheses over scripturally-framed ones, and attempts to graft scriptural outcomes onto material pre-conceptions.
Guy G.
Equal time. Right. Next, he'll be asking his pastor to give "equal time" to agnostics, Satanists and humanists. Another example of "tolerance" being forced on us. But have someone even hint at creation or even "design" in a classroom and we're quickly silenced, condemned and maybe even prosecuted for mixing "church and state".
Dee M.
Either you believe GOD and JESUS, or you don't. Either you believe in a deity that is all powerful and all knowing, and everything you see in the world can fit in that worldview, or you don't believe and everything you see in the world doesn't fit that worldview. If you believe Jesus lived, died, and resurrected himself, then how can you NOT believe his Father used Him to create everything like he said he did.

If you believe there is a reason that we need JESUS, then you must believe in Genesis as Genesis lays the foundation for WHY we needed him and his salvation. If you don't believe in Genesis and the creation of all, then there is no sin, no fall, no redemption and no eternal life.
Lawrence D.
I was saved in early 1974; not quite finished with my 22nd lap around that greater light that rules the day (Genesis 1:14-19). Too long of a story to post here as to how I ended up repenting, believing and being saved, but ... the memory of it all is as though it happened just minutes ago. My life came to a point where I had to believe that either the Bible is the Word of God and is all accurate, or none of it is. Praise God, by His grace, I chose to believe it is all true. I have never looked back these 45 years. CMI and other creationist organizations have amply demonstrated that there is no need to be concerned that an evolutionist, OEC or anyone else could present an argument against what Scripture states so very clearly.

Thank you CMI for your Love of God, His Word and dedication to getting truth out to the public.
Josef L.
Wow, I have to really hand it to Shaun for the way he handled these exchanges, especially after Bevan's second letter. It seems clear that Bevan didn't really read Shaun's first response, other than maybe a quick skim.

Bevan says he's listened to hours of debates from both sides and is unimpressed by the biblical creation side. But if these exchanges are anything to go by, then I have serious doubts that he truly engaged the biblical and scientific arguments for a young earth.
Melvyne C.
Bevan writes: "Hi Shaun, thanks for the reply. Some thoughts:

In terms of sharing the stage, many times old age creationists like Hugh Ross has spoken at atheist conferences. They invite him but not young earth creationists because young earth does not have a scientific basis."

Miracles do not have a scientific basis in that they are super scientific and not reproducatable or testable. Your arrguement is narrow, is it not? Humans have no ability to command a miracle at will over the will of God. You, brother Bevan, and the world together, cannot construct a test cosmos in new space complete with all its energy and matter, and at a given time. Therefore, you can't test your science so called. You believe opposing what God testified publicly to a nation at Mount Sinai from heaven (Exod 20:1) and (20:22).

No one can test the power of God, nor his word. By faith, not human theory/science, we please God. Your belief in long ages is unprovable, opposing the word of God written miraculously in stone set for our good. All the halls of science are unable to constuct or compute a single miracle. That's why discussions do not taken place!

Darwin dismissed miracles in his Autobiography. As for him being a scientist, he never qualified. His only qualification, in divinity! Your version of God - Yahweh/God, can't even keep his own law. Are you, brother Bevan, qualified in making and evaluating a miraculously given divine law?
Henri D.
It is a sad fact that many people need so strongly to believe what they believe that they dare not properly read the responses they get, as these responses might clarify where they go wrong. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a Christian could struggle to understand the basic concept of a perfect Creation without death until the fall and the need for Christ on the cross. Bevan appears to not want answers.
Cowboy Bob S.
Shaun made some excellent points and displayed the double standard of the critic.

While operating an online biblical creation ministry myself, I have encountered people *demanding* equal time. This is really an excuse to dominate and control information; it is actually an effort to shout us down and silence us or negate our material. (Another way this is done is to use ridicule and misrepresentation, as you well know.) It has been rightly said that since evolutionists and old-earthers have dominance, we *are* equal time. Shaun pointed out that we certainly do not get "equal time" from OECs and evolutionists.

"The false teaching we have nowadays is an American invention started in the 1800’s claiming to be a ‘new revelation’." Where did he get that blatant falsehood? I seriously doubt that he has honestly read biblical creation science material. He emphasizes science, there are many article available with "hard science" in them.

Thanks for this article. Keep up the good work!

The critic said that he listened to hours of debates on both side, dropped his preconceptions and read the Bible. A straightforward plain reading of Genesis reveals that "day" means "day"; if God had wanted us to believe in long ages, there are other words available to communicate that idea. Also, he claimed that biblical creationists did not have cogent arguments. I lack belief that he dropped his preconceptions, since evolutionists and old-earthers smuggle in many errors in logic and their deep time preconceptions.

Not only did the mocker use the genetic fallacy, but the appeal to motive and veiled ad hominem fallacies.
David S.
Why would a ministry dedicated to steering the church back to a belief in the Word of God give equal time to unbelief? Ridiculous! CMI is trying to help purge the body of the uncleaness of compromise, and you can find unbiblical information about origins in a myriad of places, including in most churches, seminaries and ministries. This is just another of the many attempts of the enemy to distract people that actually are willing to believe God, even when it’s unpopular and through constant ridicule. Stay strong!
Nathan G.
Bevan,
The age of the earth is a salvation issue for two reasons: 1) Christ claims to be God and to have created the earth. So you are calling God a liar, if you say He doesn't know how old His own creation is or claim that there are mistakes in His own book. 2) Christ confirms the perfection, accuracy and truth of the Old Testament from the first to the last murder recorded. Also, if you want an ancient earth, then murder, death, suffering, cancer, etc. would come before God pronounces His creation "good", therefore making Him a liar and a fool once again in your view. (I assume you believe in the pseudoscientific cult of evolution in some form.)

Next, how strong would the magnetic field have to be to kill all life on earth with a half-life of 1400 years? Extrapolate backwards.

Carbon-14 dating also kills any old earth ideas quickly. Our best instruments can only measure about 10 half-lives worth of decay. In other words, even if C-14 is truly present below that level, we can't detect its presence. Yet we find C-14 levels in coal, oil, natural gas, fossils, etc.which are much higher than ambient C-14 should be. Even if contamination occurred, it would have to happen dozens or hundreds of times to still be measurable in fossils allegedly "millions" of years old, even if the entire original organism consisted of pure C-14 (a ludicrous idea). Even a pure block of C-14 would be gone in far under one million years. And Vikings of known age with ocean-based diets date much older than their actual documented ages, due to less C-14 in the ocean, so the C-14 test and its assumptions are flawed anyway. A worldwide flood burying 7 trillion tons of coal artificially "ages" the results by washing masses of C-14 out of the system, too, which still hasn't reached equilibrium.
Antonio F.
I'm surprised and dumb-founded at how many times the secular scientific community present arguments for the OE view and end up providing evidence for a YE.

The OEs know of the model of plate tectonics that indicate the current land masses were originally one big one known as Pangaea. It supposedly divided into 2, the north that became the Americas, Europe, and most of Asia, and the south (Gondwana Land) that became Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica. This model of plate tectonics was based on the Jigsaw puzzle effect, where the land masses of today can be seen to fit together. Geologists follow a principle that governs their thought processes when determining how to reconstruct the past, 'the present is the key to the past'. They always refer to slower erosion rates of mm/yr happening on surfaces when determining ages knowing that this ignores the MAJOR erosion mechanism that erodes rocks a lot quicker, freeze/thaw. This quicker mechanism erodes coastlines at much faster observed rates of 0.5m-3m/yr. That means the erosion that has occurred on coastlines from the time of the GF 4350yrs ago would equate to 2-13km, ignoring the fact that erosion rates were likely a lot quicker for some parts of the coastlines due to being freshly deposited. OEs claim that Australia split off from Antarctica ~150million yrs ago, yet if they held to their principle of the present showing them what happened in the past, then there would've occurred 75,000km-450,000km of erosion on these landmasses (1/3 of that if ice ages stopped erosion for 2/3 of that time), which would mean that the plate tectonic model of an original one landmass wouldn't be possible.

Even OEC can't fit their gap theories into that. Even science contradicts their own OE views. God has left us the evidence we need.
John A.
I usually don’t consider posting replies to these things, but Mr. Bevan’s early statements ended up making me laugh, presumably not the intended result. When I was a teenager in high school I was an OEC because I didn’t know any better. Then I started looking at what I was being taught in biology class. I tend to look at things in extreme detail, and I noticed that much of what I was being taught didn’t make sense in terms of cause/effect. The “how” of getting new genetic information made little sense. Mutations were much more likely to break something than to create something new and useful. Ignoring that, the very concept of natural selection (as explained in the textbook, that is; I’ve since learned that reality disagrees with the textbook in terms of natural selection’s efficiency) would make evolving between types of animals incredibly difficult. Changing a component to be slightly more like the “target” component in function makes it less capable at its original function, thus likely killing off the disadvantaged mutant. This made big changes highly unlikely if not impossible. Combine that with the assumptions required for radiometric dating to work, assumptions that I could already tell were illogically arbitrary, and I had to start to wonder how anyone could take evolution and the required “Deep Time” that accompanied it seriously.

I’ve since learned better arguments, but I still find it shocking that a textbook teaching evolution was so unconvincing that I went from accepting it unconditionally to rejecting it entirely in less than a year.
Mitch C.
This illustrates the value of presuppositional apologetics, and the need to make both unbelievers and skeptics such as Bevan aware of the unproven assumptions at the foundation of their beliefs. Bevan's problem is that he accepts the false teachings that he has received from biased secular sources--public education, secular media and compromised Christians like Hugh Ross (who likewise trust secular sources as much as, if not more than, God's Holy Word).

Even though the secularists imagine themselves to be unbiased, they are clearly biased against Christ and against Biblical teaching. This should come as no surprise to those who know and believe the scriptures, for we are plainly told that "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7), that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18), that "men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil" (John 3:19) and that "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The problem with compromised Christians is that they place unwarranted confidence in the teachings of Christ-rejecting people who are at war with God. Their loyalty is divided. They do not have 100% confidence in the Bible, but instead allow the fallible teachings of unsaved men to overrule the plain teaching of scripture. With them, scripture is not the ultimate authority. It is analogous to the Medieval Church, who claimed that common Christians are not qualified to interpret scripture for themselves, but must instead trust the "experts" to tell them what the Bible REALLY means.

We need to pray for Bevan, that God will give him full confidence in His holy, infallible Word.
Steve B.
Bevan is like many Christians, riding the fence. They do this to be accepted by both sides, they are too weak to make a firm stand. Bevan needs to remember that Christ said our lives as believers would not be easy because we are suppose to take a stand against an evil world. Bevan please remember this, when one stands on the fence one can fall off on the wrong side and that can bring real trouble in one's life.
S H.
Ironically if we simply go back to the Bible, any reading other than of literal 24-hour creation days isn't found anywhere. What you do find is the Old and New Testament (and Jesus himself) only affirming literal 24 hour periods. The problem is your starting point. Is God's Word true? Yes. Does the Bible mean what it says in the way that it means to say it? Yes. Did God create the world? Yes. Do we trust what God himself says about the creation of the world? Yes. Does what we observe on earth and in the universe support what God says - without any need to twist or manipulate any facts (or even remove God)? Yes. In that case, simply going back to the Bible clearly shows quite the opposite to Bevan's conclusions.
Steve W.
I have to agree with Bevan. It's ridiculous to preach a young earth when you have dinosaur bones and the Grand Canyon staring at you in the face. There is no way to force-fit those in the last 6000 years. We all agree the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. So what about man's interpretations of it? Genesis 1:1 is clearly creation but when was it? Was it 4.5 billion years ago? This would certainly allow time for the dinosaurs and Grand Canyon to fit in the earth's history. The six days in Genesis 1 appear to be literal 24 hour days with a morning and evening. We can count back to Adam in the Bible to about 6000 years ago. That's a huge difference in time. Human history does not go back 4.5 billion years but what if the earth's history does? Today's scientists are good what at they do. Let's don't leave out the Neanderthals and other people that date back to 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. God made Adam on day six. My point is for all this to harmonize the six days in Genesis 1 have to be God doing a restoration about 6000 years ago of an 4.5 billion year old Earth. After all, God is going to make a new heaven and earth in Revelation 21:1
Tas Walker
Hi Steve, You already have enough information and knowledge to know that there is a conflict between the evolutionary view and the Bible (you mentioned dinosaurs, Grand Canyon, 4.5 billion year age of the earth, Neanderthals, human history, etc.). But you do not seem to be aware of the problems with dating things in the past, human evolution, geological history, and attempts to reinterpret Genesis. I would encourage you to do more reading on this web site on the issues you have raised, especially about Noah's Flood, Flood geology, and radioactive dating. Not only will you then be able to see that the evidence is beautifully explained in terms of biblical history, but also that the long-age evolutionary interpretation has lots and lots of problems.
Melvyne C.
Steve W says: "Today's scientists are good what at they do." Really! They can't grow a human from a monkey to prove common descent hypothesis.
If scientists are "good" at what they do, then they make bad a divine law God gave from heaven (Exod 20:1); (Exod 20:22) and then wrote the same in stone ((Exod 31:18).
Theistic scientists mark God nine out of ten, having in their expertise, Him getting got one law wrong on origins.
Once the Holy Trinity is marked down, proud beguiled fallen sinful man is made "good" enough to ascend through a soulless being or simian knuckle-dragger into death, as the will of God.
The death of confidence in the word of God plumetts, all due to "good" evolutionist science. Some would say, due to the sins of such scientists, leaders and teachers.
Christopher B.
The age of the Earth may have nothing to do with when it was created. God may have created it and the universe around it old for very specific reasons. If the speed of light in a vacuum is truly constant as the scientists believe, then for us to see things farther away than ~6,000 light years would be impossible if the entire universe was created brand new. Adam and Eve would not have seen any stars until the first ones started popping into view ~4.5 years after creation. With more every so often after that. We still wouldn't be able to see most of our own Galaxy let alone Other galaxies. Even the 2 dwarf galaxies that orbit our own would be beyond the point where their light could not have arrived yet. That is, if the universe was not created old. Since we can see objects ~13.8 billion light years away, I suspect that the light was created at the same time the universe was so that we CAN see it. God created the heavens and the start to proclaim His Glory. Why create it if we can't see it because the light hasn't had time to reach us yet?
Actually I don't care much. God will tell us when we see Him if we ask. So I'll find out the truth for sure soon enough. Until then we can only guess.
Tas Walker
Hi Christopher. God has told us. In fact, he wrote it down Himself with his own finger. Exodus 20:11: "In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." He did it in six days during Creation Week. If you can't work out how He did it don't worry. Just believe it. But if you want to see some ideas about how he possibly could have done it search for "distant starlight" in the search box on this site. You will see some interesting theories. But the fact is that He did it in six days.
Christopher W.
This whole thread illustrates that the Creation/Evolution debate has nothing to do with Creation or Evolution.
I beg to differ on this as a salvation issue. Maybe an evolution believing person COULD accept salvation but many use evolution to justify rejecting Jesus.
May I use an illustration? How do you make a jigsaw? Empty the bits out of the box, sort the parts, get the corners, line up the flat edges. Find parts with the correct colours, comparing bits on the table to the picture on the box. You have already made your first assumption which is completely and utterly unprovable or unsubstantiated. How did you know that the bits were in the right box. Suppose the picture is a sunset over water, but the puzzle is of snow covered mountains. This illustrates that a “prior assumption” was made, indeed has to be made.
Using the jigsaw bits as a metaphor for the facts and one’s worldview as a metaphor for the picture, we see that the debate is about which worldview did you sign-up to, did it include God. What picture will you assume correct when interpreting what you see.
No matter how much evidence CMI presents in refutation of evolution, the evolutionist can and will always resort to the “still to be discovered” “rescuing device”, because the alternative is admitting that the worldview they hold is wrong aka the jigsaw parts won’t make the puzzle they BELIVE it does make.

I am a 6-day YEC, but this is not the fundamental underpinning necessity. “Did God directly create Adam in his own image” is the necessity. Theistic Evolution doesn’t allow that. The only consistent position for TE is Adam never existed. If Adam evolved as a sinner, sin existed before man, so evil was created by God. Clearly wrong. Hence TE's become inconsistent.

Thankyou for excellent articles
David P.
Thank you so much for keeping me amused, if confused. I do think it's about time you gave up this hilarity and admitted that the Old Testament is a collection of hand me down myths. Sure they're nice stories with many morals for us today - but that anyone in 2019 can totally dismiss virtually the whole of science - geological time scales of billions of years, dinosaurs in the Ark, along with polar bears and lions is beyond ridicule. Just think about it. There are thought to be around 8.7 million animal species; 10,000 bird species and 925,000 species of insects. And old Noah collected two of each? Must have kept himself pretty busy. Do you lot in Leicester, or Kentucky just have the teeniest doubt you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
Tas Walker
Hi David, It is normal for someone like yourself to laugh and mock when they first encounter creation ideas. So, we are not offended by what you write. Your response is so predictable. But the seed has been sown in your mind and you will not be able to remove it. It will have a good effect on you. I think you would personally benefit by reading some more articles about the issues you raised. Search for such key words as "who wrote Genesis", "Geological time scale", "dinosaurs", "animals on the ark", etc. Enjoy, and be blessed.
Arby A.
Thanks for sharing this exchange.
Bevan said "Sorry didn’t understand your Mary story". I'm not sure how to put this without risking offense but Bevan's admission that he's incapable of understanding a fairly basic analogy hints at the limits of his cognitive capabilities (as do several other signs in this exchange) and this raises an interesting point.
There are those people capable of wrestling with even the most complex and technical arguments and evidences. There are those people incapable of grasping even the simplest arguments and evidences. And then there are those in between (most of us, really); and I think they’ve got it toughest because they’re often just smart enough to ask the hard questions, to get themselves into the murky waters of doubt and scepticism (which is fine) but not smart enough to navigate their way through and out again to the Truth (which is not so fine). It’s the classic idiom “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
I mean, I get that one’s position on spiritual things is usually, at its core, more heart than head, but it seems to me that those people with “a little knowledge” are most likely to struggle like Bevan.
Luckily one doesn’t have to be highly intelligent or educated to be wise. Wisdom can lead anyone to God, professor or peasant.
Ross B.
There is something else that Bevan could consider. In spite of the evidence given by Shaun (and it is good and well-based evidence) there is something else. In Hosea 6:3, there is an amazing statement: "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord....." There is a context here, but referring to the principle of following on to know the Lord, the more one draws closer to Him, and reads His Word, the more the doubts regarding the unambiguous statements in the beginning of the Bible flee. "Then," as Hosea says, "shall we know...."
It is not scientific evidence, per se, that convinces us, although it can help tremendously, but the inward witness that comes from intimate fellowship with the Lord Jesus, that His Word is as it says, without having to try to bend it to suit so-called scientific evidence.
Joseph B.
Oh, there is so much packed in this article and the feedback. I would like to address one aspect that has been implied but not necessary acknowledged in detail. I often hear that how we interpret the data is our worldview and we cannot otherwise prove our position. I disagree. The evolutionist and deep time evangelists can NOT prove their position. They cannot prove it, primarily because their reasoning is circular. The Biblical interpretation, on the other hand is not circular reasoning. The Bible itself is a remarkable book in so many ways but let us leave it at the obvious. Approximately 40 men that did not know each other penned a book with referential integrity over about 2000 years that tells one story, has yet to fail to be inaccurate historically and has accurately told the future before it happened (there is of course so much more). This is beyond miraculous. It transcends human ability and must be inspired by God Himself; there is no other option here. We measure our understanding of the world, its history and future against this Bible. In addition, we are told that the Heavens declare His glory and we are without excuse. Considering all of this, the young earth creation interpretation is proven because two witnesses are all that is required. Adding the Heavens, making three witnesses settles the matter. The deep time position has only one witness and that witness can only see in the present, it cannot see in the past, it can only speculate about the past.

I should add, were it not for the fact that science actually proves that evolution and deep time are false, I might never have come to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.

CMI, keep up the great work and keep looking up as Jesus is coming soon for his Bride.

-Joe
Thana D.
Why make it so difficult. The Lord said it, I believe it. No reason to argue it, the Word is Jesus.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.