Intro :

The Bible & Science...

What's a Christian to Do!

Ver. 12.0 06/06/2006

Preface :

Introductory quote:

From space travel to organ transplants, one of the most important influences shaping the modern world is science. Amazingly, people who lived during the Civil War had more in common with Abraham than with us. If Christians are going to speak to that world and interact with it responsibly, they must interact with science.
   - J.P. Moreland  Is Science a Threat or Help to Faith?

This paper addresses what in my opinion are the greatest challenges Christians face today in the information age. It deals with creation, origins, Christian reputations, false beliefs, the flood, fossils, dinosaurs, age of the Earth, and more. The emphasis is on integrating science and the Bible. I want to state on the outset - I am a Christian and I DO believe in creation.

I also know many many Christians are not happy with the rubber stamp half answers we get. It's even worse to be put into the position of repeating or teaching beliefs we don't quite believe... or at least doubt. No one who is inquisitive likes these untidy loose ends. Further, none of us like to advertise that fact that we have troubling questions... we don't want to be perceived as doubting or ignorant... so by the multitudes we suffer in silence. How many times have I heard "well one day we will know", "we are not supposed to know that now", or something similar. I am not promising all the answers here - but quite a few of them are right in front of us, we just don't see them or want to accept them.

This paper represents the results of several years of intense study and reading on these topics. I kept my mind as open as possible. I purposely read tons of material that both supported and rejected my beliefs and preconceptions. And yes, my beliefs have changed along the way. This is in my opinion, the only way to learn. Once you close your mind and refuse to evaluate both sides of a topic, nothing more can be learned.

I did not take on this quest lightly. I soon learned that a grasp of Hebrew would be of immense help - as everyone kept referring to and mentioning Biblical Hebrew words (of which there only about three thousand). To that end I have taught myself some Biblical Hebrew - while by no means a Hebrew "scholar" I learned enough to be beneficial.

Ancient Hebrew is very fascinating. Unlike our language, the individual letters have meaning. For example with the word "cat" in English, the individual letters have no meaning, In Hebrew each letter very well could represent characteristics of the cat. This is because the oldest scripts are actually pictogrtaphs that represent something... let me give you a few quick actual ancient Hebrew examples:

You can check out the ancient script for yourself here: Ancient Hebrew Research Center's Script Chart

Further Biblical Hebrew is written right to left, back to front. As if that were not enough: there were no chapters, no verses, the vowels were left out, no punctuation, and no spacing! Just a continuous string of Hebrew consonants! Now that ficticious "cat" now becomes "ct" or really "tc"! So you have to pick out the word from the string of letters and determine from context if say cat, cot, or coat was intended! An interesting aside is that the very word we use to speak of our letters "alphabet" is actually a concatenation of the first two Hebrew letters "aleph" and "beyt" - one could write a whole paper on linguistics and Hebrew!

If you are really going to delve into some of the controversial issues in the Bible, you need to learn something of the original languages - or at least the history of the translation - especially if you are going to hang entire concepts on the meaning of a word or two. Some think this is rubbish... They say "God gave me the King James version - that's all I need". Well, for these people I offer the following simple examples:

A fine example is the Hebrew word "erets" translated as "earth" that appears in the King James Bible. What do you think of when you hear the word Earth? Probably the round spinning globe of a planet we call home - right? We subconsciously "add in" things like the Earth's: size, volume, shape, number and shape of continents, size and depth of oceans, height of mountains, diversity and quantity of wildlife (from the deepest parts of the oceans to the polar regions), etc. The word Earth comes with a lot of baggage today... This is a very recent definition of "Earth". In Biblical Hebrew, this word means "land". It could be an individual's land, the land of a city, as far as you could see, or possibly the extent of an empire. In short, it usually meant anything but what we attribute to it now!

Another example is the phrase in Genesis 1:28 "... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...". This helped lead Scofield and others into the gap theory - which postulates that in Genesis 1:1 everything is created, in Genesis 1:2 it becomes "formless and void", and Genesis 1:3 on details the "re-creation"! The Hebrew word translated as "replenish" really simply means to "fill".

My final example is the word Adam/Man. Most do not realize that the Hebrew word for "Adam" and "man" are one and the same. The translators decided where to put in "Adam". There is no special proper name for Adam!

Possibly now you can appreciate the difficulty, and understand some of the arguing that goes on as a result of taking these original Hebrew texts, translating them into "old English" (the language of King James in 1611) and applying our modern meanings to these older translated words!

I think you will find this information helpful and informative. I feel you will gain something - regardless of which "side" you fall on with regard to any one of these controversial topics. Either I will win you over to my way of thinking (if we differ), or in the case that we are in agreement - your confidence in your belief will be strengthened, and at the least you should walk away with an understanding of the reasoning behind each "side" of the issue.

I cannot take credit for most of the ideas and thoughts contained within this paper. I stand on the shoulders of others that have done a tremendous amount of work. I'm not going to name names at this stage, because I don't want to prejudice your reading in the case you have been exposed to negative information pertaining to a given author - or line of reasoning. I make logical cases that can be evaluated on their own merits.

And don't worry... I'm not a blind follower of anyone. I think many people have a tiny piece of the truth - even ones I heavily disagree with overall. I enjoy putting all the pieces together to make a coherent consistent whole.

I do have a significant amount of original material, and think I have managed to integrate a lot of information that does not exist in any one book, article, or Web site. I have also condensed the material greatly that you may evaluate the key points. This allows you to receive and review this information without reading thousands upon thousands of pages of material contained in numerous books, articles, and Web pages.

Numerous verses are cited (and usually included), so you need nothing but this paper. However I encourage you to have a Bible handy, and please check out anything you doubt! All Bible quotes are in quotation marks, the words of Christ are in red, and all Bible text included comes from the King James Version of the Bible (unless otherwise noted).

I now want to ask you for a favor... please read this entire paper all the way through - then render your decision. Many of the concepts here may be new to you - some may seem strange. You may not even be familiar that there are arguments on some of these issues among Christians. I do not wish for you to be "put off" by some point early on and not finish the paper. This material is very convincing when you look at it in its totality. Individual points may seem weak to you, but together they form a powerful and logical conclusion.

This paper may even be offensive to some Christians. This is not my intent. I am passionate about my beliefs. If I were not - you wouldn't be reading this paper! At times I also play the role of "devil's advocate" (pun intended) to make a point. My goal is to get you to critically look at your own beliefs with an open mind. Please read this paper in the spirit it was intended. It has been one of the most enjoyable things I have ever done, enjoy!

Background :

Many Biblical fundamentalists hold the belief that Science is at odds with the Bible when it comes to the origins of the Universe. In fact the two have been drawing together heavily since the theory of the "Big Bang" emerged.

Did you know that the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory name assigned to the theory at the time by other scientists? Well it is. You see the prevailing (and atheistic) theory at the time was the "Steady State" theory - which basically said the universe always was, and always will be what it is. The "Steady State" crowd was making fun of this new theory that had the whole of the universe expanding from a common point - they said what do you call that... a "Big Bang"? The name has stuck ever since!

One of sciences key rules is that for every effect there is a cause. Quite possibly you have heard of the law of "cause and effect". So if there was a Big Bang (effect) - there had to be a cause (causator/creator/God)! It demands a creator who is outside/external to our universe. This creator would transcend our constraints of space and time - just how the Bible describes God. As you can now see Big Bang cosmology is the Christians ally - not enemy. Science's own rules now demand a creator. The Steady State crowd is still opposed to this new theory because by definition the Big Bang needs an initiator. It renders science as merely the study of God's Creation.

I can remember the pastor of my Church making fun of the Big Bang. The notion that all of creation with its incredible exotic states (the chemical elements, life, diversity of life, the incredible but simple laws of nature) being the result of a large explosion (usually a destructive force) was laughable at my Church. I went along with that - wasn't it like setting a bomb on a pile of debris and expecting a fine Italian sports car to emerge after the smoke cleared? I now believe we were making fun of God's moment of creation.

This is not to say that we were all guilty of heresy, or will pay for not understanding His "true" method of creation - my pastor had no evil intent. I'm not even saying that the Big Bang is the way it had to be. But I think we part company with a lot of educated people when we refute all science and say, "man knows nothing" when in actuality "we" (the Christian trying to convert or lay a foundation for witnessing to someone)... know nothing (or at least very little where science is concerned). Or in other words we dismiss what we don't understand, and they in turn dismiss us as ignorant, and maybe even arrogant. Are we to only be able to witness to the uneducated, never a chance to win over any skeptics, science buffs, or any actual scientists? And what of the Christian child who is subsequently exposed to powerful scientific reasoning on such matters as Astronomy (Big Bang, age of the universe), paleontology, biology, geology etc. - could he not begin to doubt his faith? I think this is what the fundamentalists are trying to avoid - they see it as a slippery slope to non-belief. This is completely avoidable if we had properly addressed these difficult issues up-front. By taking the ostrich approach - we set ourselves up for ultimate failure. We should start addressing these questions head on and stop dodging them! By ignoring these areas - we ignore a percentage of the population and at the same time announce we don't have any of the answers. And if we can't provide the answers... they WILL be sought elsewhere.

Who knows what :

I think since many Christians (and non-Christians for that matter) do not understand scientific matters, and since they (rightly) do not believe in evolution, and science is what came up with this theory, all science must therefore be wrong. I think the temptation to get on a "higher" plane by dismissing all scientific theories is great. They get to save all that time and money that scientists have spent studying their profession, and end up smarter than they are... for free! All with just a simple statement like "man is wrong" - and you allegedly have God as your authority to boot! I personally have witnessed this attitude a LOT.

Now let me put this into perspective for you (man's supposed ignorance). It seems Christians are very eager to practice science. I have heard and read many articles where they speak authoritatively on topics such as astronomy, biology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, virtually all the sciences - with no training in these fields.

I wonder why many of these same people can't practice much simpler professions like auto mechanics, or carpentry? I propose that most would be terrified to attempt to rebuild an auto engine, or put an addition on their house - but the same individual will freely "practice" science! Now let's take this a step further... Doctors have a tremendous amount of science background. Yet I don't see non-degreed Christians practicing medicine! I know individuals who seek out Christian lawyers, mechanics, and realtors exclusively. But I know of none who seek out Christian doctors exclusively (especially in a serious or terminal situation). Their primary concern NOW is getting the best educated and most experienced doctor/surgeon they can find. And subsequently put their life literally in his or her hands! Now I don't know about you but I see a tremendous inconsistency here!

First impressions :

If a Christian has a serious lack of knowledge he or she will quickly be "sized up" and ignored accordingly. You don't think so? We all do it. Take your favorite subject, the one that you know the most about, and recall people you have spoken to regarding this subject. Think of how quickly you form an opinion as to their grasp/knowledge of the subject. I'll give you a fictitious example.

You are at a computer store and someone asks you for help with a problem they are experiencing in running a program on a computer. They state that the computer asks "press any key to continue..." and they ask you where the "any key" is - they have looked all over for the key to no avail. Would you not form an instant opinion that this individual is ignorant where computers are concerned? And maybe due to its severity - this naivete may possibly not be limited to computers? Or in other words it could be a window into their actual intelligence?

We form these instant opinions about people in situations every day. Think how quickly a person will dismiss you if they perceive YOU as ignorant. Are they going to ask you for investment advice? Probably not. Now ask yourself if they would base a decision affecting the rest of their life - their soul, their reputation, and their family, on what some ignorant person thinks. I think you get the picture.

Now consider one of the primary ways of witnessing... door to door. Think about how you "size up" people who knock at your door wanting something - even without the ignorant issue, there is a predisposition to blow this person off! No matter what they are selling or promoting - "Oh no! What does some poor soul want to peddle on me now"! This is what we are up against. The predisposition is that we are peddling religious garbage on the poor, underprivileged, and weak, in an effort to make more blind followers to bring in more money.

The Christian reputation :

The reason I make these harsh statements? Simple, because VERY regrettably many peoples primary or only knowledge of Christians is through television. I know this is unfair - but people tend to view other people stereotypically - and as a result they (non-believers) have a tendency to view ALL religions/religious people the same. And the fact is many so-called religions and cults do indeed prey upon the weak - it's a fact. They take advantage of the weak of mind, weak of spirit, and weak of body. Christian TV with it's greedy host's heavily caked in makeup, white wigs, and tears on cue has become a spectacle of religious garbage - designed for the sole purpose of parting fools from their money. There may be legitimate ministry carried out on TV... but if it is, it's all to rare - and they have a much higher bar to clear to gain legitimacy and respect due to past abuses by others (i.e. Baker, Roberts, Swaggert, etc).

There is another example I discussed with a Christian friend recently. Have you seen Benny Hinn on TBN? Ever caught one of his "healing" episodes? I'm talking the ones where he makes people fall down by touching them - some of them actually before he touches them, as if a little off cue! He supposedly heals these people right in front of the cameras. He is nothing more than a modern day snake oil peddler! People like this are able to exploit Christians ability to believe in the supernatural. How tragic examples like this are!

As you might have guessed by now - Christian's reputations of a lack of knowledge and education distress me. Especially when they are arrogant and condescending in espousing their dogmatic beliefs based on nothing more than ignorance. The even modestly educated or well read sees through this instantly and subsequently ignores these individuals. Our reputations for being blind followers are equally troubling. Again due to stereotyping and past abuses by other "religious" figures. Like a bunch of sheep that will follow a Jim Jones, David Keresh, or a comet cult over a cliff without so much as a question.

We need not and should not check our brains at the Church door. Theology and science are intertwined and traditionally (the majority of) neither camp likes it. More work needs done integrating it. Ironically all the original science greats were believers, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. Science actually has its roots in believers. Only recently with the extreme minimalist fundamental movement on the Christian side and the Theory of Evolution on the secular side, has there been a rift established.

There is a great book on the state of the evangelical mind written by an EVANGELICAL. The book is written by the McManus Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College (IL), Mark A. Noll. The title is "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind". For this work, Noll was awarded the 1994 National Association of Evangelicals "Book of the Year." This book should serve as a "wake up call" for all Christians to respond to God not just our hearts, but our minds as well. You can order this book or read reviews on it at

Another great book along these lines is "Love God With All your Mind" by James P. Moreland. You can order this book or read reviews on it at

These books chronicle that it's not science that left or is opposed to Christianity - but simply that Christians abandoned science!

We also have to be careful and check what we read. The old saying "Don't believe everything you read" contains some truth. There are "Christian" authors who are not honest. Do not rely on the false premise that they are necessarily above fabricating supporting evidence, misquoting sources, or fabricating negative information about persons with whom they disagree. This trend is especially true in the area of apologetics. There is abundant material in books and tapes that are easily refuted. Now this applies to this paper you are reading right now - If you read something you think is outlandish... check it out!

Another disturbing trend among these authors is claiming advanced degrees in specific areas that turn out to be awarded from either foreign schools, "degree mills", or are honorary degrees bestowed upon them by a school that they either have founded or support!

Why this paper :

It has been a personal search for truth. I also wanted to make the point that it's ok to be "scientific". It's ok to read about physics or study astronomy, or just simply to ask questions. Why does man ask these questions? It's in our blood - our soul to inquire. God imbedded this nature into us. Just look at kids - they all ask questions ALL the time. They're mental sponges. Regrettably many throw in the towel at some point and kind of turn off their analytical/inquisitive side of the brain.

Do I have it all figured out? No. And unlike a lot of other's out there, I don't pretend to be some expert that I'm not. However, I have learned a tremendous amount. I did this by thinking for myself. I am not out to impress you - I want you to think... think for yourself. If there is something I am interested in, I read all sides of the issue, weigh the evidence, and come to my own conclusion. Often all that is needed is a little reading and some simple logic. I've done it - and you can too!

I am not a scientist, although I may argue as though I were. I am a layman in all things I mention in this "paper". What I do bring to the table is a reasonably educated and well read person who believes in God and has a bigger curiosity than most. One of my hobbies is amateur astronomy. This led me into physics and ultimately into origins and theology. I find these topics fascinating! I have no degrees in astronomy, physics, or theology. I by some accounts could be considered ignorant. I do not consider myself ignorant - I'm just not as educated as others in these fields. However, I think traditional education where you are taught under instructors learning their beliefs and preconceptions, where your knowledge and understanding of their way means if you will pass the course or not is not always the best way to learn. I have been free to study as I see fit forming my own conclusions without fear of failing a course or facing the ridicule of others. This allows fresh views to form unbiased by others preconceptions.

The reason I go through all this research is I can't have blind faith. I must reason all these things out - so I can explain it to myself, my wife, my daughters and others who I care about or who care to know. I have found people will listen to you when you can provide answers with supporting details. I think this is especially true when you can integrate these answers in science and the Bible. I intend to put this document on the Internet. Hopefully it will provide encouragement to others who have been through a similar situation where they felt pressure to choose between the Bible and science.

The good news is the Bible does not require blind faith! Blind faith is the prerequisite of all cults (question nothing and believe what you are told). Do not fall into this trap (even for unfounded dogmas). This is why there are horrific stories surrounding figures like Jim Jones, David Keresh, or that more recent comet cult group. Sure enough, if you stop thinking - someone else will start thinking for you. Before you know it - you believe things without even knowing why - or certainly won't be able to explain why you believe what you do. We should be ready (as 1 Peter 3:15 says)... to explain!

Consider the following provocative tongue twister:

Even if you believe what you knowingly blindly believe to be true - is right, (because you trust/believe in who you are listening to) - how will you win others over to "your way of thinking" (pun intended) - if you're not!

Does the Bible address knowledge :

To those detractors who would say that the pursuit of all this knowledge is pure vanity, ego feeding or in general not of God, I offer the following powerful verses supporting questioning, researching, checking, proving, as well as the pursuit of knowledge, truth and study. I have actually been accused of studying the Bible too deeply... that I should go with just a simple reading... I do not believe this is what the Bible says we should do.

I Peter 3:15
"... and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you"
This is the fundamental verse supporting the area of Apologetics.
Derived from the Greek word "apologia" in the original text.

Exodus 19:9
God provides proof for believing (He has on many occasions)...
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD."

Many Christians only accept as truth what comes directly from the Bible. In learned theological circles this is referred to as "special revelation". But there is also a doctrine of "general revelation" or "natural revelation" in the Bible - "for all are without excuse". This is expressed clearly in the following 13 passages (more on this later as well):

Job 12:7
"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:"

Job 38-41
Too long to list - please look up!

Psalm 19:1-4
Direct Biblical quote referring to creation showing us knowledge...
"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

Psalm 50:6
"And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah."

Psalm 85:11
Could this be a reference to the fossil record...
"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven."

Psalm 97:6
"The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory."

Psalm 98:2-3
"The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly showed in the sight of the heathen. He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God."

Psalm 104
Too long to list - please look up!

Psalm 139
Too long to list - please look up!

Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."

Habakkuk 3:3
"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise."

Romans 1:18-22
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"

Romans 2:14-15
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"

1 Corinthians 13:11
Tells us to put away childish thinking...
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Psalm 25:5
"Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day."

Proverbs 3:3
"Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:"

Proverbs 12:17
"He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit."

Proverbs 22:20-21
One of my favorites - gives ammo for witnessing...
"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"

Proverbs 23:23
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding."

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Proverbs 1:22-23
I'm afraid too many Christians fall into this category...
"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."

Proverbs 2:2-6
Pretty powerful one here...
"So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding."

Proverbs 8:8-11
"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it."

Proverbs 10:14
"Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction."

Proverbs 13:16
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly."

Proverbs 14:7
A warning to refrain from foolish teachings...
"Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."

Proverbs 19:2
Could sum this up as think before you leap...
"Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth."

Ecclesiastes 7:11-12
"Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun. For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defense: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it."

Isaiah 41:20
More proof...
"That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it."

John 14:29
Says that prophecy is for proof that allows belief...
"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."

John 19:35
"And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe."

Acts 17:11-12
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

Romans 2:20-21
Be careful and diligent if you are a Biblical teacher...
"An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"

Ephesians 1:17-18
"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints"

Ephesians 3: 1-5
Everything to learn is not so obvious...
"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;"

Colossians 1:9-10
We should never become complacent with our knowledge...
"For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"

Colossians 3:9-10
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"

1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Or in other words - test or reason it out.

2 Timothy 2:15
Doesn't get any plainer than this...
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

1 John 4:1
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

What about faith :

No I'm not totally against faith. Faith is ok - and in fact demanded for some aspects - but not near all. Have faith in redemption - the rest is ok to inquire about. Your faith will only strengthen with knowledge. This faith (tempered with knowledge) will be much more powerful and persuasive. Does not your competency and confidence and effectiveness with say your PC increase with research, experience and understanding. Could you help someone else with a difficult PC problem before you had this level of knowledge? See the analogy?

Since we have an interest in getting people to address one of life's biggest decisions (the fate of their soul) - we should have a handle on some of life's biggest questions. This is wise because addressing the issue of your soul naturally conjures up thinking about these ultimate questions. Before some can believe - they need more information. Would you not want sound investment advice before investing the family nest egg? I think it's healthy to be a little skeptical and inquisitive.

This brings to my mind the numerous quotes I have heard idealizing the "faith of a child". While it is true that children easily accept things... this is primarily due to their blind and innocent trust. Children are easily lured away by adults with evil intent... just as trusting individuals are easily lured into cults or sales scams. Would you say that it's easy to "take" a skeptical adult? No it's more difficult if not impossible.

I have been told that you can't win someone over by appealing to their brain or their intellect - you have to appeal to their heart and emotions. This may work for some - but not for all. And I don't know about you - but I regret a lot of decisions I made out of emotion - but I can't think of any I regret when I took the time to reason it out logically.

Does the Bible tell us all we need to know :

In a word... no! We need not and should not attempt to shut out secular education! For example the Bible does not teach us:

False beliefs and urban legends :

Some of the traditional Christian beliefs are by themselves hard to accept for non-believers. They become possible SERIOUS stumbling blocks for others to come into the faith when we exaggerate them. We need not make this more difficult than it is by repeating absolute falsehoods. I have found some Christians hold beliefs both scientific and Biblical as absolute facts when in actuality they are completely untrue and not supported by science or the Bible.

One of the harshest criticisms I have received concerning this paper is that I am out to debunk the Bible. This is not so. I simply disagree with what some people: have been told the Bible says, "think" the Bible says, or some particular exegesis (written extrapolation from scripture). What I intend to point out in this section is that well meaning Christians have been duped into various doctrines, beliefs, proofs, etc. as facts... when in actuality, they are very much controversial (even among very conservative Christians) or worse, absolutely erroneous.

Do you ever wonder why creation, the flood, and several more of the fantastic areas of the Bible are not preached about from behind the pulpit to adults? They are by and large reserved for Sunday school classes designed for children. We need to be careful regarding what we instill into our children. Children are inquisitive, trusting, believing sponges. We should not allow this to be exploited. I have seen books and videos from Ken Ham depicting Eve riding A Triceratops dinosaur bareback in the garden of Eden (see the cover picture here: The Dinosaurs of Eden! Or even Noah leading dinosaurs on board the Ark (see the cover picture here: D Is For Dinosaur)! I put this in a category far worse than teaching your children to believe in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy!

We need to be very careful as it appears Christians are gaining yet another bad reputation: Accepting any story no matter how bizarre as long as it suits our needs, while at the same time balking at even the strongest scientific evidence when it's perceived as threatening our religious beliefs. Some examples of these false beliefs and urban legends are:

Two web sites to check out urban legends:

God's methodology :

We need to be careful about exaggerating portions of the Bible. God has a way of being only just as miraculous as He needs to be. God has a way of using natural means to accomplish His will whenever possible. I am not denying miracles, it's just that in our zeal to show the power of God we may invoke fantastic miracles in situations where they may not be as miraculous as we might like. Well meaning Christians who want to show evidence for God and His power by invoking miracles - may end up with the exact opposite effect of what they intended. Consider the following:

Creations purpose and God's involvement :

We and all of God's creation are for his pleasure (the Bible says so - Rev 4:11). This may sound belittling but an analogy could be a child watching his sea monkeys perform (it's entertainment - He enjoys His creation). To a great extent I think He has a hands off approach. How else can you account for all the wickedness in the world today? You can't have Him pulling ALL the strings or He would be causing all the sin (so you have to leave at least some things to us... right?).

And it wouldn't be much fun if he had to decide where every subatomic particle, atom, photon of light, molecule, chemical, virus, bacteria, plant, animal, man, comet, asteroid, planet, star, galaxy, and every piece of space debris was at every instant or worry where every drop of rain is going to fall - that's why it rains on the believers crop as well as his wicked neighbors. He's allowing the natural methods and processes He created and set into motion to run their course. God is still in His 7th day of rest from creation (more on that later). Only when things get really out of hand does he have to put on his tool belt and do something supernatural!

Our will, God's will, do we have a choice (predestination) :

To follow up on the issue of who's responsible for all the sin. Many think of a possible paradox about God knowing all, and our free will. It is similar to the following scenario: If God knows I go to work tomorrow... do I have the option of not going? The solution is God is not bound by space or time. He can be anywhere at any time he wants - even more than 1 place or time at once - in fact he can be everywhere all the time. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp - many of us have heard this before. Well here is an analogy: Imagine a wagon wheel... imagine its outer rim is time... now imagine God is the EXACT center of this wheel at the hub... the spokes are his access points to be at any or all "time" points along the rim. Or you could imagine the wheel set within a fog of God... completely surrounded by him. This allows God to know all... without causing all!

Ok Let's get "scientific" (the universe) :

Current theory holds that all the matter (and space and time) in the universe originated at the same spot. In my opinion, in layman's terms if all the matter (and space and time) of the universe was compressed into a single spot (a singularity as it is called in mathematical terms) of infinite density of non measurably incredibly small size - does not this equate to all the matter in the universe simply springing into existence out of nothing? Is not this a perfect description of creating the universe where there was nothing? It just "exploded" into existence - the Big Bang!

Did you know that the Bible describes the universe? These Bible passages describe the "kingdom of heaven":

Matthew 13:31-33
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

Mark 4:30-32
"And he said,
Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it."

Luke 13:18-19
"Then said he,
Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."

Can not a grain of mustard seed be compared to a singularity (in Biblical layman's terms)? A grain of mustard seed would be among the smallest if not THE smallest piece of matter they would have been familiar with. And as you can see - it's in several passages of the Bible - not a single verse taken out of context, but a repeated concept in three gospel accounts. Could we not also be likened to fowls lodged in the branches (expanse of space)? It speaks of the seed growing, could it mean expanding?

I think it's fascinating that the passage in Matthew above uses the analogy of leaven. Even today, in modern science classes and books, bread rising is used to illustrate the concept of an expanding universe!

Some think this has nothing to do with describing the physical universe... They say "it's a parable". Well one of the beautiful attributes of a parable is it's multiple meanings and applications. And to those of you who think that Biblical writings could not deal with the universe... I would encourage you to read the apocryphal book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is even quoted from in the new testament book of Jude! The book of Enoch was banned for over a thousand years because of it's depiction of the acts of fallen angels. I believe it is probably correct and lends clarification to the giants (nephilim) of Genesis chapter 6 (that's another topic though). Fragments of the book of Enoch were even found among the dead sea scrolls.

Current theory also holds that the universe is still exploding/expanding. Edwin Hubble is the man who discovered that the universe is expanding. He deduced this by noticing the now famous "red shift". Red shift refers to the light of the galaxy becoming red (actually "shifted" slightly to the red end of the spectrum). This is like slowly adjusting the hue on your color TV until the whole image is red. Only this "red shift" is caused by a galaxy receding from us at an incredibly fast rate (approaching the speed of light 186,000 miles per second). It is similar to the following analogy:

Take a rope and have a friend hold one end. Take the other end and swing it up and down (producing waves in the rope). Now run backwards while swinging the rope - can you visualize in your mind how the "waves" would stretch out? This is very similar to red shift. You have shifted the frequency of the "waves" in the rope. Light travels in waves, and you change its color by changing the wavelength. Wavelength takes on new understanding in this analogy. The rope is light, you are the receding galaxy, and you friend represents fixed observers on earth!

The following scriptures depict what could be expanding space:

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Isaiah 45:12
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

Isaiah 51:13
"And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?"

Jeremiah 10:12
"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion."

Jeremiah 51:15
"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding."

Job 9:8
"Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea."

Job 26:7
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Psalm 104:2
"Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:"

Zechariah 12:1
"The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."

As you can see there is abundant scripture referring to this "spreading out" of the heavens. The Bible is VERY consistent with this description. The key word in Hebrew here is "raquia". Young's concordance defines "raquia" as "expanse" and "raqa" as "spread out or over". The Bible could have just said only "created the heavens" would this not be adequate? Why the need for "stretch out"? He didn't "stretch out" man. Granted it could simply be a reference to its expanse. But at it's best it's a confirmation of our expanding universe, and at its worst it cannot be used to argue against it!

Some have questioned me "What will you do when the big bang is refuted"? Well, that's a valid criticism... My answer is that it's the prevailing theory, It was predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity, the background radiation was predicted by it before it was discovered, confirmations of the big bang are continuing to come in, and many of the so called "alternate" theories are still based on some form of an expanding universe - which is really still a big bang model (just one example is the inflationary theory). There are alternate non "Big Bang" theories out there, but they have little support and no predictions that have come about. My personal belief is that the Big Bang (expanding universe) is very safe.

For those who think that the Big Bang is about to collapse or that young earth creation scientists Setterfield or Humphreys have solved all young Earth problems with the universe... you are advised to read this paper by young Earth astronomer Danny Faulkner - THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY: and also this one by John Hartnett - A New Cosmology:

I would challenge you (especially if you are a young Earth advocate) what you will/would do if a very old Earth and universe was proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Or what you will do when/if the Big Bang type beginning is similarly proven? I encourage you not to put God in a box of your making.

Creations reference frame :

A common Bible study concept is that the events recorded are to be interpreted from the reference frame of the observer. This is very important at times. Let's apply this... who witnessed creation? God did! He is the observer (it's on His time scale, or His possible multiple dimensions of time, or possibly not within time as we know it at all).

The Bible cannot allow itself to be "locked" in time. I believe the Bible is written in a timeless fashion. This means Genesis need not delve into scientific issues or have given man advanced scientific foreknowledge. By being written in a timeless fashion it can apply equally to sheep herders thousands of years ago - as well as 21st century astronomers!

In a cruder sense, vague or less specific language was used than would have been possible if you didn't care to boggle their minds. I don't think they were overly concerned or obsessed with the length of creation.

Now don't misunderstand me to be characterizing the ancients as ignorant or intellectually inferior. I do not believe men thousands of years ago were intellectually inferior to today. The pyramids are a testament to that fact. Evolution teaches that man started out as hunter gatherer - I believe he was created with all his intelligence and capability for language etc.

That said - today were are able to stand atop thousands of years of accumulated knowledge which our ancestors did not posses. They did not have technology above simple engineering - nor did they posses advanced mathematics etc. And the further back you go the fewer that could read and write - as advanced education was reserved for the VERY privileged. God had to write to the lowest common denominator. Not every man could design a pyramid in the time of the Pharaohs... Can the janitor where you work explain relativity to you today?

I believe this is the very reasoning for the peculiar wording of Genesis 1 & 2. It has built in "upgrade ability" to accommodate man's increasing knowledge.

Age of the earth and the flood :

There is a popular misconception that until recently (theories of the Big Bang and evolution) everyone believed in a young Earth - this is not so. The antiquity of the Earth was established long before any of these theories were an issue.

I have read translations of ancient Jewish Rabbi commentary on the Pentateuch and Talmud By such authors as Onkelos (2nd century), Rashi (1040-1105), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahmanides (1194-1270) and they clearly believed in an old earth.

The early church fathers and Biblical scholars appeared to hold a wide variety of opinion as to the nature of the creation "days". Some have claimed (even in print) that the early church fathers and all other Christians during that time were in complete agreement on 6 24-hr "days" for creation. Irenaeus acknowledged widespread belief in creation "days" lasting 1,000 years (as in 2 Pet 3:8 KJV - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) Here is the reference -- Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter XXIII, section 2. If you care to read the reference yourself, I have located an on-line version:

Some have further argued (in a fall back position) "Well even if that's true it's still a young earth model". Well, they TOTALLY miss the point. Once you make these days divine (non solar) - it's just a difference of time for the days. Billions vs. thousands. Once an age is interpreted for these days - the YEC model has no foundation on which to rest - hence why it is so vehemently defended! What's important to remember about the basis for this belief is not the specific length of the time, but the vast difference of our time as compared to God's. He is not bound by our constraints of time... what seems significant periods of time to us - is but nothing to the Creator! The young earth creationists like to point out that God would not need billions of years to create... Well, that being the case, even they (YEC) believe in a "progressive creation" else they would argue for instant creation or creation in 6 seconds... By their own method of criticism - they limit God's power by proclaiming a creation within 6 solar days.

Ironically, One of the early church fathers - Augustine, argued just that. He believed in instantaneous creation - despite the "day" references... although he went on to say "What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" You can look at what many of the early church fathers said along with the Catholic perspective that the days were probably long periods of time here:

The main fact to remember concerning these early writers is that they cannot be accused of compromising or altering their beliefs to fit current theory - as the theories that call for an old universe did not come about until the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Are there more recent "greats" that believed in an old earth? You bet! The following believed in an old earth: evangelical greats Benjamin B. Warfield and Charles Hodge as well as these current old earth believers: Gleason L. Archer (Hebrew scholar and Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), William Lane Craig (popular Christian apologist), J. I. Packer (author, contributing editor to Christianity Today, Professor of Theology at Regent College) and Norman Geisler (a prominent apologist and Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary). These men represent some of the finest in the faith and their scholarship is first-rank. If you want to see a detailed list of notable Christians that believe in an old earth - along with proof that you can check out for yourself see Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation at

Only after Darwin proposed the theory of evolution did the real paranoia set in and create a need for theologians to come up with a scenario that did not allow a case for evolution. I see this everywhere in Christian writings - this strong urge to fight evolution - AT ALL COSTS!

Unfortunately the main theme has been to make the Earth as "young" as possible so there is not enough time for it. Many modern churches are now proposing that the Earth is quite young (a mere 6,000 years old, with some camps allowing up to 10,000), and they place the flood at about 4,000 years ago. People who believe this position are called "young Earthers".

How do they come up with their age? The young Earthers basically go along with Archbishop James Ussher's chronology - Which is what places the Earth at a mere 6,000 years old, and the flood at about 4,000 years ago. Ussher in 1658 took the amount of time since Christ's death - then used the age of each patriarch at the birth of his son (from the genealogies) to derive a date for Adam - then simply added another 6 days for the literal Creation account itself - to arrive at the exact date of Sunday October 23rd 4004 BC for the start of the universe. The Archbishop also boldly asserted that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday November 10th 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on May 5th, 1491 BC on a Wednesday!

Biblical genealogies may be a tool to observe the history/age of man - but not the entire Creation (angels, universe, earth, etc). Further, they can only be a crude tool. The problem is in the meaning of the Hebrew words for father and son, "ab" and "ben". "Ab" can refer to father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or even ancestor. "Ben" likewise can be son, grandson, great-grandson, etc. For an example we can look in the book of Daniel, where Belshazzar's mother refers to Nebuchadnezzar as her son's father when, in actuality, four generations are between them, further, they are not even related! Such flexibility in Hebrew word usage and meaning explains why parallel genealogies in: I Chronicles 3, Matthew I, and Luke 3 often differ with one another. I think with this in mind, it's quite possible that they represent only the highlights - as one might do today if you were to list all the great scientists... you might list Aristotle (384-322 BC), Copernicus (1473-1543), Newton (1642-1727), Einstein (1879-1955). That does not mean you have a complete history for the earth, nor a listing of all people, or even all scientists, just the "great" scientists - well, maybe we were similarly given a list of the "great" patriarchs.

The young earth trap and its implications :

This young Earth scenario sets a trap Christians are falling into. It springs on the Christian who believes in a very young earth because it has serious ramifications on the Flood of the Bible.

The problem is, since the entire history of their perceived Earth is only 6,000 years, they must save not only 2 of every creature alive today, but 2 of every one that ever existed (even the millions of species within the fossil record)! This is significant, as over 99% of all the species that once roamed the earth are now extinct.

Due to the size constraints of the ark - they realize there would not be room for 2 of even the present species on board - much less all the ones still living at that time. So they propose the idea of speciation from the Biblical "kind". This principle has for example all zebras, donkeys, and all breeds of horses derived from 1 pair of the horse "kind" brought on board the ark.

This is absolute lunacy, and inconsistency! Hello? I thought we were against evolution. All of our valid arguments against evolution are now turned against us! We only see extinction for all of recorded history - not new species! If animals were changing this fast (many many new species within the last 4,000 years) you could almost watch them morph in front of your eyes! In fact the number of species are rapidly decreasing - it's called extinction! God quit creating on the 6th day - ever since then, species only become extinct - no more creating - or evolving (again He's in His 7th day of rest)!

There is no way to solve this young Earth ark problem. Animals hibernating or otherwise not eating won't work - there are just too many to physically fit. And Genesis itself commands Noah to take food for the animals (Gen 6:21) - this implies they were awake, eating, and secreting wastes. Neither can young specimens be called upon to "bail" this theory out - there are millions of species! Not even a combination of hibernating and young specimens get you there! They (young earthers) would not be inventing this idea of species "evolving" from a Biblical kind unless it was their only possible hope of holding this sinking theory together. They have no other way out (but evolution from the Biblical "kind").

There is another consideration. Due to the EXTREMELY young Earth they call for, all those species in the fossil record had to be co-existing with man! If you are a follower of Henry Morris or Ken Ham's teachings or read their books or videos - you should know that they place DINOSAURS ON THE ARK! I don't think the majority of Christians who promote their views are advertising this - but a lot of them believe it - or at least espouse it when pressed.

Can you imagine the patriarchs running from - or Noah caring for a T-Rex? And isn't it peculiar that the Bible is silent on them (dinosaurs)? Don't you think dinosaurs are worthy of mention if they were running around with man in the time of Old Testament? I realize not all animals get a spot in the Bible - but the fierce ones seem to. Why did stories of men fighting lions and Christians being fed to them make so much news? Would not a T-Rex have been much more spectacular? To be honest there is reference to the behemoth and the leviathan, but most scholars believe these refer to a hippo and a crocodile respectively. AIG has said the behemoth could be the description of a sauropod dinosaur (in their "Answers Book") - but Job specifically says this creature rests under the shadow of the "shady trees" (widely accepted as lotus trees) it would be quite difficult for a real sauropod dinosaur to shade itself under the short low lying branches of the comparatively small lotus tree. These creatures depictions in Job 41 clearly make liberal use of figurative and exxagerated language... For if not, you have to accept that they actually breathed fire and had bones of iron or brass! Indeed some interpret the leviathon as a dragon! Unicorns too are mentioned in the Bible - it is a result of the King James - I don't believe it was a flying winged horse with a horn!

They also call upon a pretty amazing flood. They call on it to magically sort and arrange the fossil record with simplest organisms at the bottom with progressively more complex ones overlaying them, distribute neat layers of sedimentary material to fool us by forming a geologic column; cut out the Grand Canyon to a depth of two miles, synthesize numerous ice ages; and even rapidly move continents all around the globe!

They use it to explain away everything geological. Let's look at just one of these in detail. For example they believe that the Grand Canyon is the result of retreating floodwaters. Not too bad a hypothesis until you realize that they also believe that all those fossil containing rock strata were laid down by the flood too. You cannot have the flood laying down the strata that the waters are cutting through! You see - you do not have to be a scientist to shoot all kinds of holes in their thinking. One body of water cannot be responsible for the deposits underneath it and carve down through it at the same time. Even if the flood laid down the strata (which it did not) the layers would have to be allowed countless years to harden to the point to keep the straight mile high walls. Also remember that they find footprints in layer after layer within the geologic column!

Have you ever played in the sand? Did you try to make a high wall? If you did, you noticed it slumps over and forms a slope not a wall - especially if it got the slightest wet! Wet soil will not make mile high walls - not even dry soil, you need rock! I've been to the Grand Canyon - most of the people the young earthers lecture to have not. But sadly, If you can you make 1 or 2 weak points about the Canyon (to layman who haven't even been there) within the small span of time of a single church sermon, it's easy to make enough sense to convince most of the people present, and they buy into the entire concept on the premise of those 1 or 2 points. Who has the time or inclination except dedicated/driven individuals to check out all the details and facts.

Here's another interesting observation... The problems with the strata are by no means limited to things like the Grand Canyon, there is another GLARING problem within the young earth paradigm. It has to do with the Ark's resting place at the end of the flood. You see, most Christians (and especially young earth ones) believe that the Ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat. The problem is that Mt. Ararat is a volcanic mountain that cross-cuts many many sedimentary rock layers that the young earth paradigm demands to have been laid down during the Flood. And the layers were indeed cut -- there is undeniable proof of these layers being thrust through by the volcanic mountain. The layers are not simply deposited around the mountain, nor could they have been deposited on the steep slopes of an existing mountain. How could layers that are obviously bent and distorted more and more until they are breached be explained in any other way that a volcano breaking through pre-existing layers? So, very straight forward cross-cutting relationships and other geologic phenomena tell us that the mountain must obviously be younger than the youngest rock which it cuts through. We can, therefore, state with confidence that belief in the Ark coming to rest on Mt. Ararat is fundamently incompatable with a belief in a young earth. Why? Because Mt. Ararat within the young earth paradigm, did not yet exist when the Ark came to rest! Now, I know some of you may be saying, "Well, maybe it came to rest on another mountain, I heard the bible says the Ark came to rest on the 'mountains of Ararat'." my answer is that ANY mountian significant enough for the Ark to have come to rest on basically has the same problem. Mountains either cut through or deform many pre-existing strata.

One of the driving forces for me to write this paper is to refute the belief in a young earth and its required drastic post flood evolution.

Unlike their young earth counterparts, there is a "quiet" group of creationists who are convinced we reside on an ancient planet. From the perspective of the old-earth creationists, the young earthers, with their impossible new beliefs, are causing untold grief, making legitimate creation research and study incredibly difficult.

The 'evolution' game :

I have seen the YECs many times refer to all OECs collectively (as well as some accused specifically) as all being theistic evolutioninists. This is an outright deception - while OECs do not deny breed type variations within a species, or deny that some species one way or another can be "hybridized", we do not believe in evolution. It is the YECs who not only believe in it - but believe it happens rapidly.

Most young Earth proponents are not aware that their belief requires evolution. And the ones that are aware take issue with their speciation from the biblical kind being equated with evolution. Although I fail to see any difference - except that they deny an animal evolves into another kind - never mind that they refuse to define or list what constitutes a 'kind'.

Do you think I am unfairly characterizing young earth creationists as believing in evolution? Let me show you some quotes along with the links to check out for yourself:

Article by AIG talking (bragging) about Ligers, Wolphins, Zorses and other crazy stuff. Check out this quote from the article:

"Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. "
See for yourself at:

Check out this article from AIG... Here's a quote:

"Demonstrating that speciation can happen in nature, especially where it can be shown to have happened rapidly, is thus a positive for creation theorists."
See for yourself at:

Page at AIG where they promote evolution... really - specifically descent with mutation)! Sample quote:

"The Bible clearly teaches that the heavens, the Earth, and all they contain were made during the six days of Creation Week (Exodus 20:8–11). But was the panda in the photo made in Creation Week? Obviously not. The first of some ancestral kind were created at that time,"
See for yourself at:

Check out this page... Sample Quote:

"Creationists have postulated that such speciation must have happened many times after the Flood, as populations of creatures separated by valleys or mountain ranges have adapted to environmental conditions within their territories. Some of the original population’s genes enable their owners to survive in their particular environments, while other genes are lost to such natural selection."

Check out this article... The Title is "SPEEDY SPECIES SURPRISE" Here's a quote:

"The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more defies evolutionary expectations ... but fits perfectly with the Bible."
See for yourself at:

Check out this article... The title is "DARWIN’S FINCHES Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation" Here's a quote:

"Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, as the diagram indicates, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences. Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists."
See for yourself at:

Since AIG are such strong proponents of RAPID animal speciation from common ancestors through adaptation, mutation, and natural selection - and given they are such fans of crypto zoology in general (even to include modern day dinosaurs) - many have not considered the following danger; namely that this could end up strengthening man's alleged descent from an ape like creature.

Consider that the only thing that prevents AIG, ICR and like minded groups from being full molecules to man evolutionists - is that they believe only in mutations, losses, and recombinations of genetic information. In other words - they believe that the total information content cannot increase. This information may be comforting to most YECs - but few of them realize that it is widely believed that some primates (like chimps) are 95 to 98 percent identical in genetic/DNA information. And most of these differences are in arrangement/order. Not only that, but their genome (DNA information) is acutally larger than in humans!

Most people are familiar with the mule hybrid. Most hybrids are close in chromosome count as is the case for the mule - with 64 chromosomes for the horse and 62 for the donkey - so the mule is left with 63, an uneven number which is supposedly not able to divide into chromosome pairs - and thus unable to reproduce - although there are even acceptions to this rule - foals have been born to mules, two just in Morocco, one as recently as 2002.

Now consider the other AIG often touted case of the zorse - A horse has 64 chromosomes; the zebra has 44. The zorse that results from hybrid cross breeding will have a number of chromosomes that is almost anywhere in between!

Humans have 46 chromosomes, apes have 48 - You could say the YECs are making the evolutionist's argument for them!

Are you surprised? I was when I discovered their beliefs. There is an irony here. They take issue with their speciation being equated to evolution - but turn around and equate biological evolution to the Big Bang, or even star formation! At least the former argument is within the realm of biology! Most of the young earthers deny star formation. They do not accept the birth, life, and death of stars. They are so used to the propaganda of the Big Bang being associated with evolution... That they think the Big Bang is inseparable from and indeed a part of the theory of evolution. This is NOT the case!

With the Hubble space telescope we see baby stars forming right now in the constellation of Orion (M42) and the Eagle Nebula (M16). While you can't look and see one of them coalesce and ignite in one night - you can see them in various stages of development. You can go look at these Hubble pictures on the web yourself - check out this NASA link:
We cannot deny stars! We cannot deny that they die... Otherwise what was supernova 1987a? So just which parts of the life of a star is it possible to deny?

Could God only create stars in the beginning... With none forming later on... He is prohibited from doing that? Does He form every rain cloud? Are the individual rain drops created? Can nothing be allowed to operate on its own? Can he not set cosmological events and laws into motion and let them run their course? Where do comets come from? Was each one created? Nothing formed or broke up? Did God create that comet (with it's many trailing pieces) and send it on a journey long ago to merely crash into Jupiter recently? Why are there craters on the moon? I don't think it was God's war with Satan as Henry Morris wrote in a book in 1978!

What about those dinosaurs :

I believe they were long gone before Adam and Eve were created.

What happened to them? Well I think its a virtual certainty that it was a meteor impact. Do you know we have recently discovered a crater in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula (Chicxulub) that is 120 miles across! This calls for an asteroid at least 9 miles in diameter! In 1883 Krakatoa erupted and in the U.S. and during the next season temperatures were down an average of 7 degrees overall. That may not seem too significant to you but consider that this led to very wide spread crop failure in the U.S. and even more catastrophic failures in Europe. Now consider that Chicxulub was an explosion over 1000 times more powerful (yes 1 thousand)! This clearly would have had a devastating impact on all life on this planet. As further proof this event dates to the time of the dinosaurs extinction (approximately 65 million years ago) and at that layer there is over 300 times more iridium (element contained in asteroids) than expected. Most scientists recognize this as the "smoking gun" for what happened to the dinosaurs.

What do the young earth advocates think about dinosaurs? Well, the most prominent ones think they were running around with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, that the patriarchs would have been familiar with them, and moreover, went aboard the ark with Noah! At the 1993 International Creation Conference Donald Chittick lectured on Dinosaurs and the Bible. He put forth some pretty wild claims... Namely that the "Behemoth" of Job was actually an Apatosaurus or something very similar to it. He further claimed that due to its large digestive system it burped huge quantities of methane, which certain organs in the head or throat fired up from time to time, producing the legend of the fire-breathing dragon! As for what the pyrotechnic organs might have been - he offered special teeth that clacked together to make sparks, or a sparking organ based on something like that in electric eels, or most likely, an organ that made a substance that bursts into flame on contact with air, such as arsine gas! He also claimed that dinosaurs are probably still living. He even made reference to the find (now since discredited - even by most YEC standards) by Japanese fishermen of an alleged plesiosaurus carcass somewhere in the Pacific. He even alluded to a conspiracy or cover-up as he posits they don't want to release the carcass or any information regarding it.

Before you label me as taking an extreme case and painting all creationists with the story of this lone lecturer - let me point out that Donald Chittick is a lecturer for, and praised by Answers in Genesis (the premier YEC organization headed by Ken Ham). They have even been instrumental in getting some of his materials published. See their bio on him over at Answers in Genesis here: If you need further convincing as to Ken Ham's position on dinosaurs check out his ministry's article entitled Australia’s Aborigines... Did they see dinosaurs? here: where they claim the possible existence of modern day dinosaurs.

The appearance of age :

Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Christian Scientists have always been in favor of a young Earth - just like the early Christians mentioned earlier. And again, this is not true - especially among geologists. If you examine the history of geology (or religion for that matter) you will find, that by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that the geological evidence did not support the Flood producing the geologic record. Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the Genesis Flood as an explanation of the geologic record, and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. And just as with the early Christians before - their conclusions are not based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," as none of them were evolutionists. Further, the earliest works of each of them was written before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. It was the plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And it's also worth noting that this was prior to radiometric dating methods.

As scientific evidence mounted, the Christian scientists who did believe in an young earth felt they were in a dilemma... Some went so far as to state that the fossil record is a lie - placed there artificially - a test of our faith if you will! British biologist and preacher Philip Gosse was forced to acknowledge that scientific data indicated an age for the earth far older than that permitted by Ussher's chronology, even if one conceded gaps in various genealogies (which there are), Gosse the scientist was convinced by the scientific data, while Gosse the preacher was committed to what he thought the Bible demanded.

In 1857 Gosse published "Omphalos" an attempt to make sense of it all. In this book he maintained that God created the earth with the mere "appearance of age". He proposed that just as Adam was created an adult - He designed the earth to look old. The earth would be young, but would have the "appearance of age."

Many mention this but fail to give the story proper context and background. In 1844 a pamphlet entitled Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, espousing an evolutionary viewpoint, was published. In response Philip Gosse, a minister in the Fundamentalist group called the Plymouth Brethren, wrote Omphalos, published in 1857. In it Gosse made the first written argument that creation only LOOKS old. In it, Gosse even argued that Adam and Eve had navels because that is what one would expect in God-created creatures -- Omphalos is actually a tongue in cheek reference to old question of "Did Adam have a belly button?" and indeed is the Greek word for navel.

Gosse expected Omphalos to be attacked by scientists. What he didn't expect was the denunciation by the religious community. Asked to write a review of Omphalos, his friend Charles Kinglsey, a minister and author of Westward Ho! refused and wrote the following letter to Gosse.

"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet discussed above] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Omphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."

This again sounds good at first blush to the layman - but does not hold up to close scrutiny. The earth and the universe have an abundance of features that speak to their age: distance between stars and galaxies, fossil record, erosion rates, tree rings, slowly forming features in caves, coral reef growth rates and depths, extinct volcanoes, radiometric dating of rocks, past ice age evidence, continental drift, and many many others.

If Adam were to be artificially "aged" like them, he would not only need to be created an adult - but show the signs of reaching adulthood. This would entail things like: worn teeth, scar tissue, calluses on his hands and feet, wrinkles, artificial memories, etc. Only then could you begin to draw a comparison.

Note: It is an assumption that man was created an adult. He could have been created at ANY state of development - from embryo to adult. Think about it... If man can raise infants would not the Almighty be capable?

And if you attribute all of this to God - it would make Him a counterfeiter and a liar. Taking this further, if we could not trust God to give us a true history of the world we live in, how could we trust Him to give us the truth in the Bible? A God who would falsify our Earth's history might also falsify the resurrection! I don't know about you, but I would rather believe the Earth looks old because it is old!

This scenario that would have God had writing a lie on the earth's rocks hit a sour note with most Christians - And Gosse's book fell into obscurity.

Of late, however, Gosse's "appearance of age" has been resurrected! Henry M. Morris, president and founder of The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is an aggressive proponent of Ussher's chronology, and has held to the "appearance of age" theory since ICR's inception in 1972.

Young Earthers Know the Earth Looks Old :

I will demonstrate that despite what some of them claim -- Young Earth proponents are fully aware that the earth appears to be old. This will be done with common sense critical thinking, quotes from young earth proponents, quotes from scientists, and quotes from old earth Christians. Some of them merely demonstrate that the Bible is the only source they "listen to" regarding the age of the earth -- but, this betrays their silent acknowledgement that the other "voice" (read science) will speak to it's old age.

Special revelation and general/natural revelation :

Modern day advocates of the "appearance of age" (which include most young Earthers/followers of Henry Morris and Ken Ham) hold to what is called a single revelational view. This is the belief that the Bible is the only authoritative source of truth. In other words, we must remain in the dark on matters not spelled out specifically in the Bible. And further, no tampering with their ultra "literal" simplistic meaning of the Bible is allowed.

There are plenty of verses where a literal plain reading will not be accurate, consider Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Is this to mean that she is indeed the mother off all the living? All life - every creature on the planet? I didn't think you would want to go there. You might say "just all people". Well that's not right either - she is not Adams mother. And what of the serpent's curse in Genesis 3:14... does it truly sustain itself by eating dust? It seems we are required to look a little deeper.

Single revelational theology, in itself contradicts the "literal" meaning of the Bible. In Psalm 19:1-4, the "words" of God proclaimed through the stars and galaxies have been heard by all people. In Romans 1:19-20 the Bible declares that everyone is "without excuse" as he or she faces God's eternal judgment (this would include those who have never read the Bible or heard the gospel). This is because according to the Bible - what may be known about God has been made plain to all through creation. A further list of Bible references on this topic may be found above under the bold print "Does the Bible address knowledge?"

I continuously hear young earth creationists touting over and over how fallible men are - how they can't understand or comprehend virtually ANYTHING. That fallible men can't properly interpret science (God's natural revelation) in his fallen state. And that we should only listen to special revelation. This would seem to make God rather short sighted and incompetent, as he would have given us a SPECIAL revelation that men could comprehend and interpret without error, but give us a NATURAL revelation that we could not understand or comprehend (with the exception of a few young earth organizations). Can mistakes only be made in NATURAL revelation? Is SPECIAL revelation immune from man's fallible nature?

If we are so poor at natural revelation and we can't trust our interpretations - what makes young earth creationists so confident that they can take ancient Hebrew text, convert it's language more than once, and end up with THE only SINGLE interpretation of the text possible by reading it via their modern English understanding of older English words??

I think a quote from Saint Augustine in (ca 400 AD) addresses this issue well. In his work titled "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) he said:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

How does the young and old evidence stack up :

A possible old earth time line :

This is only a rough sketch. Unlike the young earth chronology - it is not meant to be a rigid law that must be followed if you are to believe in an old earth. There is some possible flexibility within the creation account itself, as the order of creation does not follow exactly the same between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

This is only to give you an idea of a possible time line. Remarkable agreement exits between the scientific view and the biblical view if you just simply make the "days" longer than a simple 24-hr day.

15-20 billion years ago (Genesis 1:1) The beginning

Initial creation of the universe (big bang if you will) where time space and matter are all brought into existence form the spoken word of God.

5-6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:2)

The earth and solar system were a mere nebula ("formless and void"). God moves/stirs the waters (nebula). The entire universe is made mostly of hydrogen, which is the main ingredient or element of water.

4.6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:3) 1st Day Starts

"Let there be light". God ignited the sun. With some nebula remaining - the earth would have been surrounded on all sides by light (reflecting off the gaseous glowing "clouds" of the nebula).

4.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:4)

Separation of light from darkness. God cleared away the nebula, and allowed for there to be darkness for the 1st time on one side of the earth (the side facing away from the sun).

4 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 2nd Day starts

The earth cools... water in a liquid state becomes possible, crude atmosphere (air space between the water and thick clouds) starts to take shape.

2.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 3rd Day starts

The surface of the earth itself begins to take shape, dry land appears, the continents and seas form.

1-2 billion years ago (Genesis 1:11)

The first plants are created.

1 billion years ago (Genesis 1:14) 4th Day starts

The earth's atmosphere clears and clearly reveals the sun, moon, and stars. Now that they are visible, God designates them as timekeepers.

500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 5th Day starts

God creates animal life in the oceans, then insects, and then amphibians.

500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 6th Day starts

God creates reptiles and dinosaurs. A little later in the "day" he creates mammals.

10-50 thousand years ago (Genesis 1:26)

God creates Adam (modern man). Subsequently all the rest of the events of the Bible unfold.

What about Intelligent Design :

Why have so many Christians adopted young-earth creationism :

The biggest reason is that while the science of the young earth proponents is terrible, otherwise, the rest of their theology is correct. Couple this with well meaning Christians fed up with evolution who have traditionally been at a disadvantage scientifically, and you have baited the trap.

Christians have also been misled. Evolution is being used as a scare tactic, and a straw man to draw gullible Christians into young-earth creationism. An old earth does is not equivalent to belief in evolution. It is now obvious to most scientists that even a 4 billion old earth is not near enough time to go from random chemicals to man - you need an infinitely old earth. Scientists now realize that life seems to have started all at once (like with the Cambrian Explosion). Darwinian methods do not explain what they see.

Christians... are some doing damage :

I take no pleasure in speaking critical of other Christians, however, I cannot in good conscience let legions of Christians follow these young earth proponents (or their associates) without knowing the full truth. I reluctantly must say that I believe some Christians are doing SERIOUS harm. In my opinion, some have crossed over to deceit in their teachings. I will provide some information here and you can decide. In any case, you should become familiar with whose teachings you follow, and the extent and implications of those teachings. Some knowledge of who they are, where they come from, what they believe, and what they have wrote is prudent.

Henry Morris:

I believe Henry Morris and his Institute for Creation Research provide erroneous information (concerning the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc.) You will notice (with research) that everyone he cites as agreeing with his views, or the authors of other books or publications he refers to - are all on his staff (or were at one time). He does not make this clear - I have found out through much reading. This would seem to indicate scientists agree with his opinion after a critical peer review - when nothing could be further from the truth. His science does not add up, and he continues to promote ideas that are scientifically unsound or even disproved.

He holds some rather strange beliefs. For example, here's a snippet from an article with a quote from Henry Morris at a 1986 Creation Science seminar describing Hell's location:

Henry Morris was asked about the bottomless pit of Revelation 9:1-11. [Morris] answered, "Whenever Hades or Sheol is referred to in the Bible, it's always down in the earth, the depths of the earth. So right there in the center of the earth, apparently there's a great opening that we can't really deal with in terms of our seismic instruments or other instrumentation. But apparently, it is there. You can take the Bible to mean what it says."

And I have seen materials on his web site, where He espouses the belief that perhaps all the stories of sailors encountering sea monsters and such are true. He sees them as proof of man's coexistence with dinosaurs.

He even has material on his web site stating that the old myths of half-human half horse people and such were possibly true. He explains these mythical creatures as Lucifer experimenting with God's creation and related to the Nephilim (the "giants" of Genesis 6:4). * Update: After John recently took over, this page has apparently now been pulled.

Morris even wrote in a book in 1978, "The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth" (Bethany House Publishers), that the craters on the moon are the result of Michael's war with Lucifer in heaven!

This is the kind of person that "scientifically" backs a young earth. It is most unfortunate Christians are following him by the legions!

Material you can check out at ICR for yourself:

Morris background:

Henry Morris is a Southern Baptist who first founded the Creation Research Society (CRS) then in 1972, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He is the main proponent behind the modern young earth creation-science movement. His publication of The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb is responsible for the recent revival of "flood geology" and "appearance of age" theories.

Ken Ham:

I also believe Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis (AIG) organization provide erroneous information (concerning the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc.) Ken Ham worked for Henry Morris' ICR for about 7 years. He holds almost all of Henry Morris' views. Ken however, is more aggressive and confrontational. From reading his articles and hearing his debates - I can tell you he constantly gets "cornered" scientifically. He resorts to pure emotion to get other Christians to rally behind him.

Ham Background:

Since coming to America in 1987, Australian Ken Ham has become one of the most in-demand Christian conference speakers in the United States. Each year he gives talks on such topics as dinosaurs, Creation vs. evolution, etc.

He is the executive director of Answers in Genesis. He is the author of The Lie: Evolution and children's books such as D is for Dinosaur, A is for Adam.

Ken is also co-director of AIG's sister group in Australia, also called Answers in Genesis. From 1986 through 1993, Ken was "on loan" from the Australian organization (then called the Creation Science Foundation) to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

Material you can check out at AIG for yourself:

Dr Dino/Kent Hovind/CSE:

I also believe Kent Hovind and his Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) organization provide erroneous information (concerning the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc.) Unfortunately, Kent Hovind is also quite popular amongst fundamentalist churches and travels around the country lecturing and provides books and videos promoting young earth views. He also used to provide information on how not to pay your federal taxes! I personally read a page there (now since pulled) where he gave tax advice (another pundit of the voluntary tax myth). He has been in trouble with the IRS multiple times. The only hint of his trouble is on Dr. Dino's page here (This article no pulled) where he complains about Hank Hanegraaff, the "Bible answer man" accusing him of not paying his taxes (point # 9).

Hovind background:

Even many young earth proponents distance themselves from Mr. Hovind. he claims to have a Ph.D. - but it turns out it is awarded from a degree mil! This is no joke click here (This article now pulled) to see the split level that awarded him his degree for 100 dollars! Here is another link to read about him

He claims to have pictures of modern dinosaurs! Be sure to check out this link (This article now pulled - although I found another site with the picture: look at the last dinosaur supposedly from lake Erie... It's obviously a plastic toy/model!

What's wrong with YEC/Former young earth testimonials:

It is noteworthy that organizations that used to send people out into the field to do research work for the young earth cause have stopped doing so (ICR stands for Institute for Creation Research). The reason is that the people they were sending out into the field to do research to prove the young earth view came back convinced in an old earth. The evidence they would discover would lead them to the truth - hence no one is being sent out into the field anymore. Some have published papers on why they left. Here are some examples:

Creation Publications and peer review?

Many believe that the publication "Creation Ex Nihilo/Technical Journal /TJ/CentJ" (they keep changing the name) is a peer reviewed independent publication. This is not so. This publication is written and published by Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis organization. I have found that many do not realize this.

My main gripe with the YEC methodology :

Are you still wondering why am I so negative against young earth creationists? In a nutshell it's their tactics with others with whom they disagree. I do not know if you have read some of their accusations regarding old earth creationists - but it is vile. If you want to see a sample read this paper by young earth Creationist Danny Faulkner (Ph.D. Astronomer) criticizing old earth creationist Dr. Hugh Ross. The paper is entitled "The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross" you can read it here:

Here you can see my point by point comments on it - by request of Danny Faulkner himself at:

My comments went largely unanswered. His main point was a trivial dispute regarding what equipment was involved in MACHO discoveries. He neglects to recognize that Hugh said the scopes in dispute were used to CONFIRM the discoveries... he did not state they were used full time for the initial discoveries. Danny's few comments on my critique of his paper are here:

For a more thorough treatment of these tactics see AIG's Negative Tactics at:

Here is my assessment of these typical tactics...

The YEC community sits around and pretends that the evidence points to a young earth - as if there is NO old earth evidence! It's the LARGE ELEPHANT standing in the center of the room that no YEC proponent dare mention! Proof of this abounds... Glenn Morton's testimony shows what will happen if you dare to even mention the "elephant". The YEC community is not honest with the science - and no matter how pure the motive - this ultimately makes you dishonest! As everyone at the higher levels of this debate knows - every HONEST scientist within the YEC fold will usually admit (although only privately) that the vast body of evidence points to an old earth conclusion.

In light of this fact, the "game" (as I see it) is to sling enough mud and see what sticks. The logic is to cloud the science along with the scientists reputations and motives to the extent that most uninitiated people will accept the YEC interpretations of the evidence. This is effective with many - as they keep telling them that this is the only biblically possible interpretation.

As has been admitted by notable scientific YEC proponents - No scientist has come to the conclusion of a young earth without being persuaded by a "biblically" driven YEC predisposition. This fact is most significant - for it declares that if the YEC interpretation of SPECIAL revelation is true, God's NATURAL revelation is defective - as it is incapable of leading even a single scientist to the correct conclusion!

How should we conduct ourselves toward scientists :

With meekness as is illustrated in the following verse.
1 Pet 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

We should make sure we have our facts straight, and our methods are correct as Christ illustrates in this verse.
Mat 7:5
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

We must be VERY careful in how we deal with atheistic scientists. The motivation for mocking, scorn and ridicule is foolish pride. We should be very careful not to alienate our mission field... our goal is to lead them to Christ - with each and every (usually false) comment of ridicule - it makes it that much harder or even impossible to reach them.

We should not judge, mock, or in other words make fun of scientists. Consider the following verse.
Mat 7:2
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

If we mock others thinking them fools we might wake up some day, and find that it is us who have been the fools. Consider the following passage.
Prov 1:22 and 26-27:
"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you."

We have a dire need in regaining respect and credibility. For young earth creationism is so lacking in fact and logic - it is causing any reference to creation to be banned from our schools. Creation is becoming synonymous with fools! If we don't change our ways - our children are going to be absorbing nothing but atheistic evolution.

If we were in a better position of credibility, we could point out some of the false teachings in evolution. We could dispute some of the "facts" that are of a tenuous nature, etc. Unfortunately, our complaints fall on deaf ears due to our own beliefs in dates and ages that are completely unsound. This is one of the reasons so many must accept evolution - the only other alternative is seen as worse!

We need to "wake up and smell the coffee" regarding the age of the earth and universe, just like the church woke up to the Sun's central role in the solar system... We have way too much at stake.

Summary :

I will be the first to admit that a "true" knowledge of origins is not a prerequisite to accepting salvation (at least not to all). But the young Earth proponents (like Ham and Morris) come VERY close to claiming that if you don't believe in their interpretations - you're going to hell. It would appear they approve of turning the age issue into a litmus test for being Christian. Should we be so quick to draw lines into the sand? Cannot we accommodate different interpretations of the more controversial areas of the Bible?

They claim that any altering of their literal meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 causes the whole Bible to unravel. I have personally watched a video as part of the "Precept Upon Precept" inductive Bible study course on Genesis chapter 1, where Institute for Creation Scientist Kurt Wise "cut out" every verse you would have to eliminate if Genesis 1 and 2's "literal" meaning were not true - needless to say he cut virtually every verse from the Bible.

Does the Gospel demand a young earth? Ken Ham (of Answers in Genesis) thinks so... In his article entitled The Necessity for believing in six literal days he says:

"As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. ... The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world."

I for one do not think the case for God and Creation is so weak... that it cannot tolerate an old Universe. I realize allot of this paper has been somewhat confrontational, but I think good Christians CAN disagree on this issue and remain civilized - and be united in our opposition into an atheistic totally naturalistic origin for the cosmos and life.

The important thing for us not to lose sight of is that we agree on "who" Created, and that it's not so important as to when, or how long Creation took. No one disputes God took time with His Creation (he could have made all in an instant) we are just arguing about "how long". Time, day and night are all relative. Einstein has proven that time itself is dependent on your motion and proximity to a large gravity source. God is outside of time. Time is a dimension of our Universe. Time (not our concept of it anyway) did not exist prior to Creation. It's nothing more than a measure of "rate" related to "speed" while traveling. So for us to impose our puny little time scales on him is in some respects ridiculous. It's even possible to reconcile that for Him it could be 6 days, and at the same "time" billions of years for us!

However the "new" beliefs in 6 24-hr days, all creatures including dinosaurs on the ark, and 6 thousand-year-old earth present a tremendous barrier to anyone with even a smidgen of education in any of the sciences. I would argue to suffer the possibility of an old earth... if only to make it easier for others to believe.

I would like to bring up a real life example of the effect of enforcing a young earth view:
I know a pastor of a large Baptist church which has a brother who is a geologist... This pastor (a YEC proponent) has been unable to reach his brother because he cannot accept the Bible as fact because he understands it to demand the YEC position - the YEC are VERY effective in getting this message out! Hence scientists are driven away from faith.

Now note that some YEC proponents admit that you can believe in evolution and still be a Christian... That said, what does it profit us to insist on six twenty four hour days for creation? How many unsaved do you think say:

"Oh - If only someone had told me that the days in Genesis were each 24 hours, I would have accepted Christ years ago!"

Now I can tell you that turning this argument around does make it possible for people to come to Christ. Once you remove some barriers and shed the indefensible position, you can allow people with scientific backgrounds to come into faith - and at the same time boost the respectability of Christians at large.

As further evidence of this, consider a quote from an open letter to young earth creationists - by a former young earth creationist, Paul Smith:

"When I see young-earth arguments becoming effective enough so that atheists are converted first to young-earthism and then to Christianity, I will reconsider using them apologetically. For the time being, though, I do not see this happening, and I do see arguments against Darwinism - and arguments from the Big-Bang - bringing atheistic biologists, philosophers and physicists into the Body of Christ."
And for even more evidence that it has no persuasive power to thos who do not already believe, consider R.J. Riggins' statement:
"After years of intensive research, I have all but given up hope of finding a biologist, geologist, physicist, astronomer, paleontologist, or whatever, who--through his actual field or laboratory research--came up with such overwhelming evidence that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old... --that he came to the inescapable conclusion that it was all created recently. Then he looked around for who knew that all along. Then he became a fundamentalist Protestant...

It never happens in that order. A person FIRST becomes a fundamentalist--either raised that way or converted--THEN learns what he is supposed to believe about the history of Earth and life."
I see it this way... the old classic argument of the atheist and the Christian - where the Christian points out that he has nothing to loose if he is wrong - whereas the atheist has everything to loose if he is wrong. Apply this same argument to young earth creationism!

I thank you for reading this paper, and hope that you are either challenged, inspired, or relieved! If you liked the paper and found it useful or informative... Please take a second and send me E-mail.

I leave you with the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Christian, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

Further information :

Old Earth

Young earth

Are you a Christian :