|
Frequently Asked Questions About
Creationism
Paul Abramson
Editor of:
www.creationism.org
Are you insane?
Hmmm ... hard to tell.
How can you be so ignorant?
Have we met before? Remember that it's a person on the other end
when making a (forgive me, but) ignorant statement about one of us
being ignorant or stupid, please.
Isn't the crux of creationism: "God said it, I believe it, that
settles it."?
For some folks it is, yes. But in turn couldn't one state that for
most people the crux of evolutionism is: "Scientists said it, I
believe it, that settles it."?
When will you stop "standing against science"?
When will you stop - beating your wife? In other words the very
question implies something which is not true. Sometimes the minority
of scientific, reasonable persons proposing a theory are the ones
later proven correct. We don't "stand against science" in the first
place.
Please recall that the founders of modern science were all
creationists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo and
many others. Their understanding that there is a logical, Divine
Creator gave them the foundation to look for the natural laws of His
creation, and to try to think His thoughts after Him. We do the same
today as we recognize that we live in a logically designed universe.
The idea that what we see around us happened to explode itself (Big
Bang) via random chance? Creationists, standing with science, would
contend that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
What about the dinosaurs?
Simply put, they lived concurrent with man down through the
thousands of years of our existence, and they appear to have gone
mostly extinct prior to our modern era. Remember that the word
"dinosaur" is only about 160 years old. Legends of dangerous
reptilian creatures (a.k.a. dragons) have been passed down to us
from our ancestors across Europe, from China and the rest of Asia,
all over the Americas (North, South & Central), and they're
remembered in Africa too. Why should all of these legends/histories
(spanning all inhabited continents, mind you!) be trivialized and
discounted just to give credence to the temporary theory of
evolution? It is important in science to separate the evidence from
the interpretation. The evidence is that there have been these large
dangerous reptilian creatures. We have bones, recorded history and
footprints; we have strong evidence. The interpretation (or belief)
that they all died off millions and millions of years ago is in
dispute between creationists and evolutionists. And numerous stories
in recorded human history of being killed by dragons/dinosaurs and
of us banding together to kill them in return (among other important
evidence) is clearly on our side ... as creation theory grows
stronger each year.
4004 B.C. ... you can't be serious!!
There are actually several different versions of what is called
"creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards
accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the
point of life falling together all by itself in the first place.
These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"),
i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution
was the process used by this "God" after that. From
www.creationism.org
we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other
creationists, like those contributing to this web site have
continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or
belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific
evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that
the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but
many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004
B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know
that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the
radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry.
40 Days and 40 Nights, really?
Actually, in Genesis, chapter 7 it states that the waters rose
higher in respect to the land for 150 days, and went down for the
subsequent 150 days. The total time of the Great Flood was about 1
year in length from when Noah's family entered till they left the
Ark. That's what it has always clearly stated. Period. But it also
appears to have rained pretty darned hard for the first 40 days and
nights of this pivotal time (and there were strong winds, Gen. 8:1).
There is clearly no evidence that rain caused the Flood and modern
creationists have never contended this. Forgive me here, but only
evolutionists keep this false notion propped up in order to openly
distain creation theory including the Flood.
How could Noah's Ark have possibly held all of the species of big
animals in the world!
The largest dragon (i.e. dinosaur) eggs that we've found to date are
about the size of a football. One could fit, for example, a dozen
brachiosaurus eggs in the trunk of a car, with room to spare! This
also means that recently hatched dragons were not very large. Noah's
mission was to preserve each kind of animal. You don't need to find
the biggest of each kind. And you don't need each sub-divided
species either. Did you know that most modern dog breeds are less
than 100 years old? 2 healthy young mutts could preserve the genome
of the entire "dog kind" of animals. The Bible uses the word "kind"
for the different types of life forms. Horses and zebras can (and
have) physically mated producing viable offspring; so have tigers
and lions, indicating that they (according to creation theory)
probably respectively diverged from the same original stock. Dogs
and wolves (though considered quite different by humans today)
probably originated from their same "kind" too. There are a few
large animals (when fully grown) of course: giraffes, elephants, and
T-rexes among them. But the average animal size is about sheep size,
i.e. the 3-story Ark was plenty large enough to handle the variety
of animal kinds plus lots of food for them. Speciation could descend
again from original healthy "mutt" stock to start with. Thinking
scientifically about this, it shows incredible variable design, huh?
Even if the whole atmosphere was 100% saturated with moisture and
began raining there wouldn't be enough water to cover the
continents! The Flood was impossible, admit it?
This is a common charge and relates to the answer given two
questions above. The Genesis account of the Flood appears to be only
what Noah saw, and may not be a full picture of all the catalyzing
events. There is no mention of ice at all, we do know that the
waters rising (for the first 150 days) was concurrent with the
initiation of the 40 days of rain and also that the fountains of the
deep broke up, which is an intriguing statement. Rain did not cause
the Flood, but this symptom of the cataclysm also began at about the
same time.
Salt water washing over the continents would have destroyed all
of the plants anyway, right?
Have you ever added sugar to your coffee but forgotten to stir it?
What did it taste like? Before the Flood the oceans "hadn't been
stirred" yet. The oceans may not have been very saturated with
minerals prior to the Great Flood when waters violently washed over
the land masses. And we know that natural whole plant seeds (not
narrow hybrids, which are much weaker health wise, just like the
aforementioned split out dog breeds) are hardy and can tumble
around, surviving for even months suspended in and transported by
water. But from the fossil record it does look like some plant types
(and many ocean creatures) did not survive the Flood and the
adjustments needed for the colder environments on Earth afterwards.
Cattails, for example, used to grow up to 60 feet tall in the former
time, but the remnant we see today barely grow over 3 feet tall. The
modern world is but a remnant of what was before.
Wasn't the Flood of Noah just a regional flood?
Impossible. Some contend this today, but Genesis is clear that God
intended to flood all land; all humans, animals and birds not on the
Ark would be drowned. An average human can walk at 3 MPH, correct?
Over 10 hours one could then walk about 30 miles (50 km). In 100
days of walking like this it would be possible to actually walk a
few thousand miles, right? (Think of American pioneers in their
wagon trains, crossing North America by walking and driving their
wagons westward over the course of one long season.) If God was
going to send a "regional flood" then why didn't He have Noah build
a "Noah's Wagon" instead? Noah could have just moved a few valleys
over to escape such a regional flood. Geologically, we see deep
sedimentary layers covering every continent. Most sediments are laid
down by water. Deep uniformly thick layers extending laterally over
hundreds of square miles indicates a one-time past event using
tremendous depositional processes that we do not see in action
today. Such deep layers, interspersed with coal and oil reserves
(crushed former life) are on all continents, all indicating a global
flood.
The Flood was a global one. It has been remembered in
legends/histories from around the world, not just in the Hebrew
account. What is your ultimate foundation for truth? Is it "science,
falsely so-called" following the trends and beliefs of the temporary
consensus?, or is it the Word of God, with the recognition that the
majority of scientists are sometimes wrong...? For over 1,000 years,
from Ptolemy to Galileo scientists were wrong in thinking that the
universe revolved around the Earth, correct? Galileo's persecution
by the Church stemmed from their support of (what they thought was)
"science" taught by the scientists of the day. Church leaders
supported their peers over the upstart Galileo who proposed that the
Greek scientist and mathematician Ptolemy's theory (from over 1,000
years prior) may be incorrect. "Trust the majority of scientists"?
for they must be right...? No, sometimes the majority is wrong. They
were wrong when they contended that the whole universe revolved
around the Earth and there is good evidence that they are wrong
today in proposing that we are but a cosmic accident that exploded
out of nothingness for no reason. Just a statistical happening with
no God to answer to, so live your life for the here and now; humans
make the rules; human consensus is the ultimate authority.
Didn't the Scopes Trial in 1925 (a.k.a. the Monkey Trial) show
that evolution had won and creation lost - big time!
That's what the liberal media and Hollywood have consistently
reported since then.
You flat-earth-creationists make me sick!
This one isn't a question, per se, but versions of this kind of
comment are common. Usually they seem to come from young people who
want creationists (or anyone else who disagrees with them on about
anything, actually) put in their place. Oh, to be young again! :-)
You know, one thing I've freely stated before skeptical groups is
that even if they completely disagree with my conclusions please
consider the evidence on its merits. The folks who postulate the
best new theories 10 or 20 years from now are those who can also
include evidence that's quietly disregarded by the experts of this
generation because the data doesn't fit their theories (see the next
question below).
Radioactive dating proves that creationism couldn't have
happened, right?
Creationists stand on the side of testable-repeatable science. Ahem,
again, creationists are the ones standing on the side of science.
Evolutionists quietly disregard science when convenient! Rocks do
not come with dates stamped on them, nor has anyone witnessed them
aging over (the believed) millions of years. Radiometric dating is
one-third fact and two-thirds assumption, and it is unreproducible.
Lava flows occuring in recorded historic times have dated
radiometrically at millions of years old. This does not give us
confidence in the current guesstimates of the earth's allegedly long
age.
There is discernable carbon on and near many fossilized dragon
bones. (By current evolutionary theory these bones must be at least
65 million years old, correct?) Creationists scrape some carbon off
and periodically send samples to labs for (C14) dating; the results
show the dinosaur-associated carbon to be a maximum of only
thousands of years old. Science triumphs. Evolutionists have been
known to fly into a rage when creationists later publish just where
the dated carbon came from. A different example is the new lava dome
on Mount St. Helens. It is barely 20 years old, but radioactive
dating (K-Ar) shows that it is 1 million years old! ...Something is
very, very wrong here. Pompeii and Hawaii also have historical
volcanic flows that prove K-Ar dating does not work worth beans. Yet
evolution's high priests cling to such believed ancient dates since
there is no other purported "evidence" that will give them an Earth
that's over 10,000 years old. All major rivers and waterfalls show
the Earth to be only thousands of years old. The myth-ions of years
simply never happened. This is science; testable-repeatable science
we're talking about. These tests ... can be repeated, hint, hint.
What about the fossil record?
The "creationists best friend" (i.e. the fossil record) still shows
a distinct lack of transitional forms. Sure, every generation of
evolutionists have a few new ones, but none of them have stood the
test of time so far. Lately they're trying real-hard-like to claim
that "dinosaurs grew feathers" to validate temporary evolutionary
theory. This will fall flat too. Wait and see. (They have good
artists though, don't they?) They've got great illustrations of
"probable" interim forms, without the slightest bit of scientific
evidence to back them up. It's sad what they're doing to the
children with such propaganda.
Human (hominid) evolution is a FACT! Admit it!
Humans alive today vary in cranial capacity from about 700 cc to
2200 cc, with no relation of brain size to intelligence. (The
average is about 1300 to 1350 cc; i.e. cubic centimeters.) I used to
live in Tokyo, Japan for 5 years. Their average "brain size" is much
smaller than mine (as a tall Caucasian) but I can assure you that
the Japanese are very smart people. If we look at computers, one
could argue that circuits that are closer together are more
efficient and faster, ... so a smaller brain size may not
necessarily be a disadvantage, correct? When evolutionists line up
old mute skulls from smaller to larger (and purposefully hide the
found ancient skulls that are larger than today's average) they make
false assumptions linking brain size to intelligence - neglecting
reason! Plus their radioactive dating methods don't work in the
first place (as stated above), so they have no idea how old each
skull is in the first place.
Excuse me, but what happens to the bones of a person who doesn't get
enough calcium in their diet? Or if they were lacking copper, for
example, it would detrimentally affect brain development. If, in
past times, many peoples only ate local foods ... (stay with me
here) and the local soil in different places had a lack of selinium,
or magnesium, or iron, or any number of other trace minerals ...
then this would affect each person and animal in the respective area
over generations, correct? When we come along now and look at the
hominid fossils left behind let's consider all of the logical
scientific possibilities (including potentially inbred defects), and
not just use a selected dishonest evolutionary sampling of the
literally thousands of found hominid remains (hiding or ignoring the
vast majority of them!) in order to try to publicize and endow
temporary evolutionary theory with credibility - in other words,
they are proclaiming evolution at all costs in spite of the fossil
evidence. There will be a high cost to us if we let them continue to
deceive the public with false, doctored evidence. The fossil record
(i.e. the creationist's best friend) shows that each kind has always
varied within each kind, which is evidence of tremendously wise
design.
What does evolution do? (Yes, I'm asking YOU a serious question!) It
fills a need for our origins. It is not testable-repeatable. And
when creationists show that evolution stands against scientific
evidence the evolutionists get angry. Angry? Excuse me? I thought
this was "science" ... the free exchange of ideas and evidence and
all. We're threatening their religion. Who are we as humans? Why are
we here? Where will we go? 3.5 billion base pairs for human DNA.
Wow! I don't have enough faith to believe in random chance for our
origins. This is different ... different than other kinds of
science, isn't it?
Doesn't everyone know that "creation science" is an oxymoron?
This is the ultimate ancient history we're talking about - our
origins. This makes it a contentious issue that touches us each
deeply. Very deeply indeed and this makes it threatening. It is
unlike other kinds of science. If there is a God out there who both
created us and claims the right to judge us after this life, after
this time of learning and testing, then we're mad fools if we stand
strong against reality, close our collective eyes and proclaim en
masse that His existence must not be. We are afterall small, finite
creatures bound to a soft bluish marble in space that's off to one
side of a particular galaxy; limited to only 5 senses too. And some
of our "smartest" people, proclaiming themselves to be wise, assume
that all that is must answer to our finite understanding or else it
can't exist? "Evolutionary science" with its attendant hubris may
very well be an oxymoron, but not the term "creation science" which
recognizes firstly that we and our simple understanding are not at
the center of all that is.
Creationists don't publish for scientific peer review, proving
that they're not doing good science, right?
Well ... it is awfully convenient that the same ivory tower
guardians who reject disapproved manuscripts turn right around and
then blame creationists for not being allowed to publish quality
research in their scientific publications.
Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed
out that there are many creationist scientists working in industry
or health professions, but that anti-creationist bias has become so
intense in academia that no one can speak or write openly against
evolutionism without being ostracized or fired. Peer review under
peer pressure while in competition for respect and career
advancement has its limitations. Evolutionists have decided that
there is no "God" (none of any consequence) to answer to which means
that human consensus is the highest state for discerning truth. How
could any evolution-teaching professor break ranks and hope to keep
his or her job? Breaking with such a (non-God-fearing) consensus
makes one, by definition, wrong; understand that with no "God" to
answer to the corruption will grow stronger unless broken from the
outside (not unlike a corrupt city police department, political
regime, or false religion's heirarchy).
The respected Creation Research Society currently has about 600
members, all of whom have advanced degrees in science. Many of these
have published fine scientific articles. The CRS also publishes a
regular scientific journal and a bi-monthly newsletter featuring a
variety of science-based articles.
Evolution is science; creationism is religion
This statement of belief by scoffers is common. I usually respond
only briefly to such offhand remarks. But here I'll mention that
evolution is a believed process to explain our origins. In thousands
of years of human farming and ranching it has never been recorded as
occurring. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils; not a
single one. The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating
millions ("myth"-ions) of years do not stand up to
testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny. And sometimes ...I'll admit
here ... I like to alter the usual debate wording, for effect. I'll
discuss instead the debate between "creation science vs. the
religion of evolution." Macro-evolution (from molecules to man,
automatically over time) is strongly believed by its adherents but
it is not the only theory in town.
What is the difference between macro-evolution and
micro-evolution?
Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind of life form can become
another kind given enough time and chance. Micro-evolution however
is the observed biological process showing descendants that are
similar to (but clearly not clones of) their ancestors. (Isn't it
astounding that the Creator built in such automatic adjustability
within each kind!) A child usually inherits visible traits from both
parents, etc. Micro-evolution is scientific. This is the way our
Creator designed life to be, various speciation could occur within
each preset "kind" of life form. Watch carefully--when evolutionists
offer their proofs of believed macroevolution, it is ALWAYS
instances of microevolution that they cite, hoping that you won't
notice the difference. Mendel's laws of genetics show us why
microevolution does not lead to macroevolution.
...There are many more questions and variations of questions and
challenges that people ask. Hopefully this FAQ will answer some of
the questions that you may have thought of concerning this important
subject. If you're a God fearing person, please pray about your
understanding of this foundational issue. After checking out both
sides - you may come to an entirely different conclusion, but please
at least consider the possibility that the reason we've written and
posted all of this information on this web page is that we hope it
will be edifying and informative for you.
At the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned we lost direct
contact with our Maker. This was about 6,000 years ago. In the
intervening generations it has been a struggle to preserve and pass
on our place in the universe and how to get back into a right place
with Him. As our ancestors diverged after the Flood they passed on
preserved history variations including over 250 still remembered
accounts of the Flood! No culture's history claims to go back
further than about 5,000 years. All over the world this is so. Yet,
over the past 200 years there has been a growing push by "advanced
modern man" to completely forget what's left of our true ancient
history of only thousands of years in total, to be replaced by the
mythical "millions" of supposed years, that we are cosmic accidents
and for us to stand together against our Maker. "Aliens" (i.e.
fallen angels; the familiar spirits or false gods of old in new
disguises) will soon be able to step in to complete the coming
anti-history falsehood. Please don't fall for the spiritual
deception of evolution and all of the things that belief in
evolution then leads to.
I'll close this with a prayer that even atheists and anti-theists
can pray in a quiet, sincere way: "Creator, if You are there and if
You can hear me, please help me." Just take that first step. We're
not alone in the universe.
Paul Abramson, Editor of:
www.creationism.org
|
