Web-cast Questions and Answers
Published: 20 November 2002 (GMT+10)
On 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 creation
We 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:
R.M., Lexington, NC, USA
Hello, and thank you for your ministry. What argument do you consider the strongest evolutionists have, and what evidence do you consider the strongest for creationists?
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:
- Faith and facts: How a biblical worldview makes best sense of the evidence, such that the unbeliever has “no excuse”
- Q&A: Creation: Why It Matters
Several visitors also asked questions about arguments that creationists should not use.
Most of the questions we received on fossils (including about whale evolution, and Archaeopteryx) are answered on our Q&A: Fossils page.
M.R., Dominican Republic
What can we say about the alleged ape-men fossils that have been found? They are often understood as evidence for the evolution, but what were they: men or apes?
Please see ‘Q&A: Anthropology’ (this page also addresses Neandertals, Nebraska man, Lucy, Homo erectus, etc.).
Mobile, AL, USA
Please help inform me why we don’t find any ancient civilization ruins or modern humans, mammals, and dinos in strata together.
N., Atlanta, GA, USA
I was wondering if it’s true what some evolutionists say about there being too many fossils. They say that if all those creatures lived at the same time, they will cover earth 3 feet. Is it true and if so, how do creationists respond?
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).
J.T., Troy, MI, USA
Crocodiles and alligators have changed very little since their beginning. If evolution is true why have they not changed from their original physical features.
Several people asked for our comments specifically on the ‘feathered dinosaur’ display currently in the Australian Museum. See Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘feathered dinosaur’ display.
For answers to the most common questions about genetics (including on the human genome project), please see our Q&A: Genetics page.
J.S., Mount Orab, OH, USA
I am wondering about people with Down’s Syndrome. I have heard that these people have an extra set of chromosomes. I thought mutations always represented a loss of genetic information. It seems as if these people gained information, although they can’t function as well. Can you explain this? Thank you.
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.
C.G., Kilgore, TexasHow do you explain the rapid decrease in life span between Peleg and his father. I understand the [CMI] stance is genetic information loss but in ONE generation? Does that make sense, and if so, how?
B.C., Spencerport, NY, USA
How does the progress made in DNA in recent years affect the evolution argument?
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).
R.K., Murrells Inlet, SC, USA
Why are we ([CMI], ICR and others) not touting the HGP results as experimental falsification of neo-Darwinism? I’ve published details locally, but of course Scientific American, The New York Times, and the mainstream press stay mute. Love Jesus and the recently discovered [CMI] site.
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 Flood
Answers 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.
V.C., Manheim, PA, USA
What evidence do we have to support the flood and how does the time relate to the time of the pyramids?
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.
K., Brooksville, FL, USA
How do I define the line between natural selection / evolution with creation according to the Bible. Also my Professor is teaching about natural disasters that support evolution. When asked about the Flood and Noah’s Ark, he said that that was a myth. Is there proof that there is an actual ark that was located? I remember hearing something about that but I don’t remember ever hearing any else about it. Do scientists have proof that the ark does exist? Thank you for your time.
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.
J.W., Tarrington, VIC, AUS
Were there volcanoes before the flood, or did they only exist when the earth’s crust opened up to allow the subterranean water out to bring about the global flood?
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.
R.S., Mount Carmel, PA , USA
An old earther who says he’s a Christian but doesn’t believe in a global flood, said that in the fossil record, fresh water fish are found in different locations than salt water fish. He was hinting that the fossil record must be caused by several floods, not a global one.
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.
S., Mobile, AL, USA
Where are the ruins to pre-flood civilizations?
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.
F.C., Lexington, IN, USA
God said, Come, and they came into the ark. The feasibility of animals responding directly to a God given characteristic is supported by Homing pigeons, bristle thighed curlew, dogs that are dropped 10 to 40 miles from home, and they go back home. Are there other illustrations that would support animals coming when God said come?
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
T.R., Indian Trail, NC, USA
Where did the rivers that watered Eden come from if there was no rain?
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.
N.B., Sale, VIC, AUS
The pre-Flood hydrologic cycle suggests the re-cycling of river water running into the sea via the vast underground ‘fountains of the deep’. Does this mean that the salt would have been removed as part of this re-cycling or perhaps the pre-Flood seas were not salty as they are now? Comments please. Thank you
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.
T.H., Jacksonville, Fl, USA
Why do we have salt water in the oceans and fresh in other bodies of water and how were they formed after the flood? This question was asked of me when I was sharing my belief in a world wide flood. Why wasn’t all water ‘contaminated’ in the run off?
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.
S.S., Waconia, MN, USA
What is the amount of plant and animal life needed to produce all the fossil fuels that we have consumed to date and what is projected in the earth’s reservoirs? Could the earth have supported the plant and animal life necessary in 2,000 to 4,000 years before the flood? How where the fossil fuel reservoirs created during the flood?
J.M., Maineville, OH, USA
Explain the similarities and differences between Answers in Genesis and the Intelligent Design movement.
Death and Suffering
- What did aquatic creatures eat before the Fall?
- Why is there so much death and suffering in the world?
- Did God create thorns and thistles, and poisonous plants?
- If God knew Adam would sin, why did He create in the first place?
- What about the digestive systems of animals that appear designed to received a diet of fresh meat?
- Why do some animals have fangs and claws, if God created everything ‘very good’?,
- What constitutes ‘life’ in the Biblical sense?
Perth, WA, AUS
[Dr John] Morris in his book The Young Earth stated that at the time of the flood there were 35 Million people alive. Assuming 10% were babies/infants then at the time of the flood 3.5 million babies/infants drowned. How do we explain that a God of love can drown 3.5 million babies/infants? An omnipotent God could, but a loving God ? Don’t misunderstand me I’m a Christian but I am troubled by this and wouldn’t know how to answer this question to a skeptic? How do we as Creationists respond?
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 would a loving God allow death and suffering?
B.K., Fairfield, ID, USA
Two parts: How does Jesus dying on the cross, being killed by man not God pay our sin debt?
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?
As the creator of all things, did Jesus create Satan and Jesus knowing His part of the Trinity how could Satan tempt Jesus to bow down and he’d give Him the cities of the world?
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.
N.C., Tucson, AZ, USA
Something that I’ve been thinking about is the possibility that our circulatory system was put into place at the time of the fall. Thus the emphasis on ‘life being in the blood’ and the significance of blood needing to be shed for the remission of sins. Biblically I trace this to Christ’s resurrected body apparently not having blood (Luke 24:39) and the theological significance that blood plays throughout the bible, yet there is never mention of blood in heaven to my knowledge. Also, from a scientific perspective, it seems that the primary function of the blood is to carry nourishment to and waste from the body two functions not needed in a glorified body in my mind. Just a thought, but curious to see what you think of this?
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).
J.M., N. Huntingdon, USA
Question: A United Methodist Reverend told me animals were living and dying long before the fall of Adam, due to the fact that animals don’t have souls. Answer please?
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 phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה nephesh chayyāh 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]
R., IL, USA
Did Adam and Eve have hair, skin, and nails before they sinned because there was no death before sin and most hair, skin, and nail cells are dead?
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 chayyāh. 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 chayyāh. 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.
See Q&A: Astronomy for answers to questions such as:
- Did God create light in transit?
- Has the speed of light slowed?
- Since the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, why do we see star light from stars that are millions of light years away?
- Any new thoughts on the theory Dr Humphreys outlined in his Starlight and Time book and video?
- What about the ‘big bang’—is it how God created?
W.H., Milan, GA, US
In your opinion is there any relation between what evolutionists say the universe was made and what Genesis says. Such as the Big Bang Theory, do you think that God used this to create the universe in anyway because the fact that Genesis says that Earth was created then birds and fish and then man. This is the same order evolutionist claim the Earth was created. Is there any relation?
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.
T.B., Mill Creek, WA, USA
Could the white hole cosmology (Russ Humphreys’ brilliant idea) explain seemingly old rocks by the crustal rocks aging as the event horizon collapses through the crust?
No, at the event horizon, time stops.
R.C., Grants Pass, OR, USA
If two black holes get close to each other, will their gravity pull them together. If they are pulled together, would they combine? If they combine, would the strength of the new black hole increase?
Yes, Yes, and Yes; although we fail to see why this is a creation question. ;)
P.B., Cincinnati, OH, USA
Does speciation necessarily involve a loss of information and if so, why?
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.
S.S., Tulsa, OK, USA
I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this?
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).
L.R., Haifa, Israel
I’m a biology magister [sic, Latin for master] student and probably the only creationist in the faculty. When I tell people that there is no observed mutation that gain new information, I usually get the answer ‘what about jumping transposons, gene duplication etc. that changed during the years to something new’. I say that it’s not new information, but then how do you recognize a new information once you see it? Can you please clarify what exactly is this new information that is so strongly opposed to evolution? Thank you P.S. 5 hours after your program, I give a lecture in the faculty about creation.
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!
Sellersburg, IN, USA
I have read recently that in some cases mutations have caused an increase in information in an organism. Does this refute the arguments against evolution? Lee Spetner apparently admitted to the increase of information in B Cell Hypermutation in a debate with Edward E. Max. Here is what Max said, ‘You agreed with me that the model system of random somatic mutations and selection that occurs in immunoglobulin genes in B lymphocytes can “add information to the B-cell genome.” I am glad that you accept the idea that random mutation and selection can lead to an increase in information, since this idea directly refutes the notion of Dembski and others who believe that there is some theoretical bar that would prevent achieving what they call “complex specified information” through random mutation and selection.’
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:
- The immunoglobulin genes have a far tinier genome than a whole organism.
- There is a far higher reproduction rate (50 million daily) than whole organisms.
- This means they can sustain a far higher mutation rate (a million times higher) before going into error catastrophe.
- These mutations are not heritable.
- There is near-perfect selection, aided by apoptosis, whereas a typical selection coefficient in nature is 0.01.
- The process is fine-tuning an already complex system.
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.
T., Tacoma, WA, USA
If what we know about the nature of DNA in a living organism really suggests that it is not possible for it to pass on NEW information to its offspring, what is Science’s answer to this problem. Or do they deny that this is so? It seems to me that this idea is fundamental to proving the reality of evolution.
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’
K.M., United Kingdom
Are scientific and theological views mutually exclusive?
For questions about the assumptions behind the various radiometric dating methods (including carbon dating), and their inaccuracies, see Q&A: Radiometric dating.
S.L., Gainesville, FL, USA
How did the evolutionists come up with the age of earth before they had radioactive dating?
Dr P.J., Durham, NH, USA
Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archaeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
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.
R.R., Lansing, MI, USA
It is my understanding that natural gas from a Cretaceous formation with a geological age of 100 million years was radiocarbon dated to be 30 to 34 thousand years old. Is this true in general that radiocarbon is found in coal and natural gas? Doesn’t this prove that the geological ages are fictitious in the eyes of even the uniformitarian geologist? Do the uniformitarian geologists have objections to the way the natural gas was sampled or do they have any explanation why radiocarbon is found in some/all coal and natural gas?
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.
Visit our Dinosaur Q&A section for answers to questions such as:
E.C., Logan City, USA
Where in the Bible does it talk about dinosaurs and how old is this earth people ask me that and I can’t find the answers in the Bible.
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?
C.B., Kansas City, KS, USA
Were blood elements actually found in some of the bones of a Dinosaur called Sue?
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.]
For 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.
T.G., Colorado Springs, CO, USA
What is the Mark of Cain?
We don’t know—the Bible doesn’t specifically say what it was.
M.H., Wyoming, MI, USA
Question: What are some really good scripture verses that refute theistic evolution, or support it? I would also like to know what books are available on this topic from [your ministry] or any other creationists. Does your new book, Refuting Evolution 2, address this topic?
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.
A.M., Brisbane, QLD, AUS
1 John 1:5 says ‘God is light’. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, when travelling at the speed of light, time would be experienced very differently to what we would experience it. Is there room for the argument that before the creation of man, time could be described only from God’s perspective? This means that the days of creation could have been literal 24 hour days from God’s perspective, but experienced as e.g. millions of years from Earth’s perspective. From the creation of man, time is described from man’s perspective.
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’.
B.H., Spartanburg, SC, USA
I’ve read several books from [your ministry], and my question is, Why churches seem reluctant to promote creationism i.e. Answers w/ Ken Ham video series?
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).
S.D., Neenah, WI, USA
Last night in a Bible study we were talking about taking Genesis as literal-historical narrative. We had listened to Mr Ham’s debate with Mr Thwaites. A question came up, how do teach and talk to people like Mr Thwaites. Where is a good place to start when they don’t even take God at his Word in Genesis? We did agree that this is something that needs to be bathed in prayer.
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.
O.R., Raleigh NC, USA
Is there any other account or historical source that explains the origin of the 7 days week system other than the biblical account? What the implications are?
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.).
J.Z., Sacramento, CA, USA
I sure hope that I can make it home in time to catch your wonderful ministry LIVE tonight. I was wondering if the following is a good approach to debate a clergyman who doesn’t believe in a 6 day 24 hr Creation. It goes as … One thing that really interests me is that some authorities in the church can’t believe that God created in 6 literal days yet can believe that Jesus is the Christ the creator of all things including the very rocks beneath their feet. I ask them this question if Jesus asked this mountain over here to move over there would it have moved right before there eyes? What I mean by that is if Jesus while walking with the disciples if he had asked a mountain to move itself from one place to another that if it would have taken years and years or if it would have been instantly moved at his command as was the calming of the storm. Your ministry has been unto me as the woman who touched Christ’s garment. My internal bleeding due to the evolutionism that is being taught has come to a stop and the healing was truly ‘instantanious’. Amen to your ministry and you have my support always!
Please visit our Ice Age Q&A page for answers to questions such as:
Beaver Falls, PA, USA
What about what they call the ice age?
Austin, TX, USA
I was just wondering how either evolution or creation explain Uluru (Ayer’s Rock) in Australia? The huge plateau (if that’s what is labeled) is in the middle of no other mountain ranges. This has bothered me for a while. Thanks!
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.
W.O., Pasadena, MD, USA
Is it possible that there are other solar systems that God created? If there is/isn’t, does the Bible give any proof? God Bless
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.
C.C., Houston, TX, USAPlease elaborate on what ‘astro-biology’ is. What about the evidence for it? Thanks.
A.G., West Salem, OH, USA
Do you believe that God created the Earth as the center of the Universe and only created humans in his Image and animals and plants on Earth alone and not on any other planets in the Universe? If He had created man, animals, and plants on other planets wouldn’t He have stated this in Genesis?
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.
West Bend, WI, USA
A lot is being made of racism as the Klan and the Nazi Party rally in Milwaukee tomorrow. Most of us know the racism is wrong. But how many of us know why? Could you please explain to the listeners what the Biblical case against racism is. Could you compare this to the logical reasoning that evolution leads us to regarding races?
Sure—check out our Racism Q&A page!
L.H., LaFayette, GA, USA
Just the other day this was posted to an evolutionist newsgroup (T.O.):
‘Despite extensive studies in human anatomy and physiology since 1925, I have found that the following organs and structures IN HUMANS serve no useful function:
1. Male nipples
2. The appendix
3. The coccyx (tailbone)
4. Muscles that move the ears
5. Embryonic tail
6. Embryonic gill pouches
I am aware of the fact that these things are covered on various creationist web pages. I find their “answers” disingenuous, dishonest, or useless scientifically as they appeal to religious assertion (“God created it to…”).’
Can you touch on some of these supposed ‘vestigial’ structures?’
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.
Seaforth, NSW, AUS
What proof do we have that the earth is young?
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
S.G., Davin, WV, USA
Explain the first and second law of thermal dynamics and their correlation to the evolution vs creation debate.
Sure—visit our Thermodynamics and Order Q&A page.
G.G., Little Rock, AR, USA
What things do you say to start a conversation about evolution/creation, not that it is good to pit one against the other that way.
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.
D.H., Portsmouth, OH, USA
Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s new book Refuting Evolution 2 preclude the need to purchase his previous book Refuting Evolution or would that be helpful too.
Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 both cover different topics, so are both recommended reading. RE should be read before RE2.
B.B., Missoula, MT, USA
I am sure that you have encountered the Endosymbiont Theory and the Evolution of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts from Ancient Bacteria. This theory is reinforced over and over again in my cell biology textbook. Could you please give your comments on this subject. Thank You.
S.H., Danielsville, GA, USA
My 11-year old daughter is doing a 5 minute 4-H project on a subject regarding Creation Science and she would like to know what would be the best subject to cover in that small amount of time. Thank you.
Please read over our ideas here.
T.A., Burlington, IA, USA
Is there documented proof of homosexuality in the animal kingdom?
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]
J.T., Troy, MI, USA
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Thanks for giving us another opportunity to let people know about the ‘arguments’ we think creationists should stay away from (including this one).
Old bridge, NJ, USA
I have recently heard that the peppered moth argument is a moot point because it only proves survival of the fittest, but I thought I heard a while back that the whole theory of the peppered moth ‘evolution’ was a hoax. Could you clarify? Is it a valid science that is moot, or just a big lie? Thanks and God bless!
M., Baltimore, MD, USA
In Genesis 1:29, I believe God is inviting us to eat in a certain way. From the language, is this interpreted as a command or is God just showing us He has made provision for us?
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?.
S., Mobile, AL, USA
How old are the oldest records history has? Some people say that some civilizations have been here for more than 10,000 years, such as the Hindus or Egyptians. Also what do I say when someone asks how creation is falsifiable? What scientific research is being performed by creationists?
E.D., South Holland, IL, USA
My question is for Mr. Ken Ham. As a former teacher, how did you teach evolution (as required, if it was), but yet, teach the kids to think for themselves so they wouldn’t blindly accept it as they moved through the grades? I’m a first year, middle school science teacher…
See Faith and facts: How a biblical worldview makes best sense of the evidence, such that the unbeliever has “no excuse” about 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!
T.S., Rock City Falls, NY, USA
There are a couple of books in the New Look series listed below. What are their arguments and where do they err in their logic? A New Look at an Old Earth—Resolving the Conflict Between the Bible & Science—What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis.
B.G., London, United Kingdom
With all the evolutionary propaganda on the TV, is there any chance [CMI] will consider teaming up with ICR to produce a television channel dedicated to righting the wrongs of the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and big broadcasters like the BBC?
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).
T.W., Hong Kong
There are many kinds of animal on earth, according to Genesis. But in the air, there is only one kind, birds, why? My point is: it is quite odd that there is only one kind of animal in the vast space.
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 bārā’ (בָּרָא create), mîn (מִין 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.
D.S., West Chester, OH, USA
Evolutionists I discuss c vs. e with are constantly pointing me to or challenging me with the website ‘talk.origins’ as if this is a tower of scientific truth that no one can dispute or refute or question…why doesn’t [your ministry] create a counter-point website mirroring the talk.origins site with a response to each thing the evolutions have there?
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.
J., Forest, ON, Canada
I’m doing an essay on the problems with evolution, and I was wondering what are a few of the strongest arguments that I would be able to use against evolution?
The ‘problems with evolution’ idea is quite broad. See this article for some ways to narrow it down.
D.S., High Point, NC, USA
I have ran up against some skeptics who were saying that there is supposedly good evidence that there are are multiverses. This conclusion was supposedly drawn by one of the skeptics who works on electrical circuits and he is saying that they can prove that electrons just ‘disappear’ on one side of a resistor and then ‘reappear’ on the other side of the resistor. They are postulating that the electron just ‘jumps’ out of this universe into a parallel universe and then jumps back into this universe. Doesn’t this violate the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics)? This sounds a little far-fetched and ‘religious’ to me … please help.
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!
R.D., San Diego, CA, USA
Based on the quantum theory, the quantum fluctuations can produce the required energy for big bang, 4 basic fields/forces and particles associated with. How we can answer this based on creationist perspective? If the quantum fluctuations, by definition does not need an outside cause/energy for creating the energy, Big bang, etc, why does some leading Christians fall into this trap? And how we can answer effectively to the Christian who follow their teachings?
‘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?).
T.Z., Alden, NY, USA
It seems to me that since I have been able to recognize little evolutionary sayings in routine life; like referring to our children as ‘KIDS’ I would like, starting with your radio show to help you institute a program for ‘ALL’ Christians to kindly refer to their off spring as ‘children’ and not ‘kids’.
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).
When are you coming back to Japan to ‘refute evolution … again’ here? Evolution is practically a state religion in Japan.
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.
E.B., Powell, OH, USA
Have there been any recent, unbiased polls taken of the scientific community on if they truly believe in the theory of molecules-to-man evolution (Especially with all the evidence coming out every day refuting this theory)?
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.
Lorain, OH, USA
At the time of The Tower of Babel how many people where their on the earth?
Please see Where are all the people?
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
I know that Genesis talks about giants in the days of Noah. Since people were probably taller back the Pre-Flood World, is it possible the cubits (arm lengths) of the Ark’s measurements were longer then today’s cubits? I.e. The Ark might have been even larger then we normally think. (I fully agree that there was enough room on the Ark for the animals regardless of weather my question is true) God bless.
It’s possible that the cubit (distance from elbow to outstretched fingertips) was larger, but we shouldn’t base explanations on words such as nephilîm (נְּפִלִים) where the meaning is unclear. The KJV has ‘giants’ because of the influence of the Vulgate gigantes, in turn influenced by the Septuagint γιγαντες (also gigantes). But the word seems related to nāphāl (נָפָל), ‘to fall’.
Fort Walton Beach, FL, USA
How does evidence of large meteor impacts on the earth (catastrophic level) fit in with a young earth and creation?
That is a leading question—please see Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? What about the iridium layer?
C.B., Oxnard, CA, USA
What is the Grand Unified Theory Mu-27? Is that any supporting evidence? Last, how do we refute it?
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.
M.C., Sioux City, IA, USA
I have read things by the people at [your ministry], ICR, Walt Brown and Kent Hovind. I have listened and watched broadcasts as well from the various creationists. Last night, I attended a seminar with Kent Hovind and thought he did a very good job. I’m just curious why your group wants to distance yourselves and just disagree with people like Walt Brown and Kent Hovind all because you do disagree on some subjects instead of helping each other out. I think you do a bigger disservice when you attack other creationists and don’t work together despite some differences on subjects. Even Kent will sell your books but the only things I find on your site about him are insults. Even when you agree with him you don’t give him much credit.
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!’
G., Marcellus, MI, USA
What do you have to say about the article in Science (November 2002) ‘Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies’? They say ‘Placentas have evolved independently three times in closely related Poeciliopsis species … Other species in the genus lack placentas, some have partial maternal provisioning by means of tissues that might be precursors to placentas. Thus the fish represent the full trajectory of steps involved in the evolution of this organ (the eye).’
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.
E.G., Fort Wayne, IN, USA
From the Economist News, it says they’ve found a new super continent. What implications or upcoming praise does this find bring?
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.
When witnessing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to someone where, if anywhere, do you feel that the creation message becomes relevant?
Everywhere—see Creation: Why It Matters. 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.
K. (age 15), Bunbury, WA, AUS
Why is it when people read/listen to evolutionary theories (or study them at school or uni) do some of them turn away from Christianity & believe the evolutionists? What is it in evolution that is so convincing that a born again Christian would turn away from Christ, especially when they have experienced the power of God like the man that used to work with Billy Graham, (can’t remember his name but he wrote a book about it)?
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.
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.
Manchester, CT, USA
Do you get tired of answering the same questions over and over again? Such as Where did cain get his wife? and Where dinosaurs in the bible?
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.