As usual, their comments in quotes and bold. All points made here will be expanded upon in future articles.
"1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?"
Yes. Theistic (more correctly called Deistic) evolution, Day-Age theory, and the Gap theory, as well as Materialistic, Naturalistic, and Humanistic Evolution are all based upon an “old-earth” assumption which is in direct defiance of Scripture. Genesis is literal. This is believed for several reasons:
1) All metaphorical or poetic books of the Bible, such as Psalms, Proverbs, the last chapters of Danial, Isaiah, Song of Solomon, and Revelation are all clearly and easily identified as such and written in consistant and specific ways which Genesis, written as a historical account, does not conform at all to.
2) It has been shown that all early european and middle-eastern nations trace their heritage and geneologies back to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah (see After the Flood for a detailed account), proving the Table of Nations (Gen. 10 and 11) to be completely accurate.
3) God always speaks to us in human terms so that he can be comprehended clearly and easily, he never speaks in terms outside of our three-dimentional thinking, which is a common argument for long days
4) God speaks to us so that any and all can immediately grasp the inherent base meanings of the Word, thus eliminating the need for a person to dictate to us that a long day in this specific instance is the true meaning
5) If there was death before Adam, there was sin before Adam and therefore it would not be “very good” in the eyes of the Lord, for he said that death shall be the last enemy defeated
6) By relation, if God used death and misfits, Adam didn’t really fall into sin, which nullifies the trust in the rest of the Bible. It nullifies the trust in the Old Testement because almost every one of those books quotes back to Genesis. It nullifies the New Testement, because almost all of them quote back to Genesis, and if certainly nullifies the life and death of Jesus Christ. If there is no such thing as sin, why’d he have to die?
7) It calls into question the trust and truth of Jesus; he quotes back to Genesis no less than 25 times.
"1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect."
Misconception. The Bible clearly (aka, in simple, non-technical language) states that Noah only had to take aboard all animals in whose nostrils is the “breath of life.” Only those who breath through nostrils. It’s hardly “incorrect.” Since Dinosaurs breath through their noses, they are included in those saved. Besides, there are thousands of eye-witnesses in the modern day to indicate they are alive in the Congo swamp. If one does a little researching, they will also find them mentioned in the Bible (Bohemoth and Leviathan), and in history (as dragons). (more on this to come in the creationism and biblical theology sections of this site)
"1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?"
Because they have been taught by a weak and compromising church that Genesis is metophorical, based entirely on the idea that evolution is proven (it is not by any stretch of the imagination)
"1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?"
Because they have been 1) misinformed, 2) taught only that Genesis is metaphorical, or 3) don’t really want to have a personal and judgemental creator of the universe.
"1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?"
More on this to come.
"1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?"
I would say that they clearly have several misunderstandings of both religion/faith and science. First of all this assumes that science has proven evolution, and it most certainly hasn't done that. Secondly, this assumes that faith is a belief in the unknowable and unknown, which is also simply not true. For is it not written, "Come, let us reason together"? Note that it does not say, "Come, let us believe blindly together." God has left an extreme amount of evidence for us to find.
1st Peter 3:15 states: "but santify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope in you, with meekness and fear"
Also 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 states: "For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful through God to the demolition of strongholds, pulling down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ"
Ken Ham's response to scoffers is thus: ‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
You know, they call it Christian Apoligetics--but I'm not one bit sorry for what I have to say!
"2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)"
There are many observations which support creationism. Science (the observable, repeatable, reproducable, documentable present) has observed the adaptation of many hundreds of animals, within the limited gene pool all ready present and a loss of genetic information. As each animal become more specified to their area, they loose information. The sheer number of mass fossil graveyards found supports a global flood (as the animals die, they float and are caught in eddys which scramble the decomposing bodies in a jumbled mess) Fossils themselves require rapid burial in order to be preserved, and the fact that millions of fossils are speaks of a natural disaster of global proportions. The Grand Canyon is actually a breach in a ridgeline about 6,000 feet high (explain how water would flow uphill for millions of years and you may have proof of evolution). The fact that the thousands of layers of rock in the world were laid down without erosion between them, the existance of polystrate fossils, the fact that there are nearly 300 flood legends, that all the early civilizations like the Sumarians, the Babylonians, the early Celts, Britons, Saxons, and Norse and many more trace their lines back to the sons of Noah; the evidence is overwhelming. Much more on these topics will be addressed on this site eventually, and links from this page to those will be given. For now, I highly encourage you to read these articles for a lot more information.
"2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?"
Many. A good example is enviromental adaptation. The Bible teaches that God created various kinds of animals which then scattered over the face of the earth where they adapted to their enviroments within the gene pool. This specification is based upon a loss of information and sorting and maintaining of the current subkinds and species through natural selection, which is a regulatory process. Additionally, the creationist model states that a global flood came in and wrecked all the real estate of the world. Thusly, it is predicted that nothing alive or historical records will be found to be older than roughly 5,000 years. And this is found to be true. By counting the annual rings on the oldest tree alive, it was determined to be 4,300—5,000 years old. The oldest living coral is 4,200 years old. We only have about about 5,000 of reliable, consistant, confirmable history. More on this to come in later articles.
"3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)"
Certainly. God created the world 6,000 years ago, 4400 years ago there was a flood, God’s judgement upon the world through which the fossil record and geological findings should be interpreted. There are hundreds of evidences of a global flood.
"3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)"
All evidence is examined in light of the Holy Scriptures and current actual scientific discoveries (as opposed to so-called evolutionary discoveries). For our theory to be falsified, it must be shown through archeological, geological, palentological, astronomical, biological, chemical, mathematical, and historical evidences that directly falsify the foundation of our theory, the Bible (note that this is asking for actual scientific evidence, not assumptions of the silly evolutionary theory: no evidences will be accepted through the geologic column, uniformatarianism, radio-metric dating, computer simulation, probability programs, or answers which contain “scientists theorize,” or “scientists assume” or “scientists estimate.” We are looking for direct observable and confirmable through the framework of real science evidence that falsifies the Bible. Given that thousands of evidences have been uncovered for the reliability and accuracy of the Bible, I highly doubt that any such evidence will ever surface, however I do wish those commited to finding such things luck).
"4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)"
This will be addressed elsewhere. Suffice it to say that there is no coherence among the dating methods, unless it be that they all start from a false assumption (old-earth). This can be pictured easier if we look at it this way: A soviet citizen asked an american, “if Capitalism works, why doesn’t my government say so?” They don’t say so because they don’t want to. And that’s really the bottom line. They give the same answers because of common assumption.
To further advance my point, I give the following quotes: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious..It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted," (R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, pg. 9)
"C-14 dating was being duscussed at a symposium on the perhistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archeologgists toward it, as follows: 'If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it." (T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed., pg. 35)
"It may come to a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as 'acceptable' by investigators." (J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, pg. 167-173)
"4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
This must be defined further for clarity. With what I am given, this seems to be begging the question. It assumes that the Geologic Column is right, and then asks us to show how to explain a flood through the nice, clear, neat layers of organization. My answer, we don’t. The Geologic Column is not given a part in the equation. Secondly, there is no neat distrubution in nature. All fossils are found contorted, violently twisted, and jumbled in a mess, evidence of a catostrophic disaster of global proportions.
"5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?"
This is a common question. The answer is yes. I can think of only a few areas where our theory cannot be tested, and they mostly reside in giving empirical proof of God (similar to giving proof of evolutionary origin). Archeological evidence can be, and has been, found to confirm time and again the perfect accuracy of the Bible in all ways.
"5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?"
Certainly. The advancement of knowledge in all areas of science, new discoveries about life, the world, and the universe are always causing us to fine-tune and improve our theory (as opposed to radically change it in order to maintain it, as evolutionary theory has done many, many times).
"5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?"
This depends upon the deffinition of change. If the author means totally re-writing the theory to conform to evidence as evolution has done at least six times off the top of my head (macro evolution of theory), then no. If this means minor variations based upon new information to fine-tune our arguments with, then yes, as every theory does.
"6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)"
Lower the ocean level by a few hundred feet and suddenly every modern-day continent is connected to the others by what is known as the continental shelf. As for why certain things are found only in certain places, this question is asking for a theory invented out of the clear blue in order to explain how they are living only in a certain place. We weren’t there and the Bible does not speak in detail about the issue, though it is probable that it can be explained by climate and enviromental conditions.
"7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs."
Yes, there is a consistant reading of the Flood story. It’s right there in Genesis and is clear and easy to understand. A more detailed analysis will appear (when I have time) in the Biblical Theology section of this site.
"7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?"
To provide a clear and plausable theory. Pretty obvious.
"8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)"
See Flood FAQ for more.
"9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey."
No, actually, you explain how it could of worked in the beginning of evolution, with a chain of one. Or even how the chain developed once there were enough living things to have one. This question invits pleasant fiction, but not plausable science. I’ll admit this, I don’t know how it worked. But then again, I already have all the animals fully created and ready to go. Your theory needs to explain how it got all of them before it can talk about how they can eat each other.
"9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark."
This has been shown in numerous genetic breeding experiments. It is known as adaptation. I don’t honestly see how you could doubt that all the dogs in the world came from a dog. That’s a logical statement. The real question is, if you don’t believe all the dogs came from a dog, how can you believe that all dogs came from a protoorganismic slime billions of years ago?
"9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each."
No, no, sir. This is avoiding the real question. The real question is how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from a single-celled protoorganismic slime.
"9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood."
Once again, your theory has many more problems than mine, sir. I think it’s only fair, as your theory is currently taught as fact, that you explain how symbiotic animals and parasites first developed and survived during their transitional periods.
"10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind"."
Get your Bible out (if you have one) and read these passages. Genesis 6: 19-20 and Genesis 7: 2-3. Note that the hebrew word translated as ‘beasts’ or ‘cattle’ is behemah, which merely means vertebrate animals. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which refers in general to reptiles. Noah had no need to take sea creatures either. Nor, in fact, did he have to take any plants; they can survive easily as seeds or on floading mats of vegetation. Noah had no need to take the thousands of different kinds of insects and other invertebrates. They can easily survive floods by burrowing into the mud or living on again, vegetation mats. There were no need for enviromental controls because the pre-flood world had a nearly global, spring-time climate. Cattle, as in the question, is actually a kind of animal itself and therefore Noah did not have need to bring every species of them. The word ‘kind’ is any group of animals which can interbreed, and is consistant (in the current biological groupings) with possibly as high as the family and as low as the genus.
"10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters."
We have no ability to calculate such a thing. The Bible lists only the dimentions of the ship, not the shape or specific features needed for such accurate calculation. However, converting the cubit length to feet, we find that the Ark was 459x75x44 feet, which becomes a volume of 43,5003. This is equal to 522 standard american railroad stockcars capable of holding 240 sheep per car. I will now provide a quote:
“If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.” Read all of Dr. Sarfati's article here
In other words, plenty of room for anything.
"10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9)."
This is a rediculous question. We are told that the animals went on the ark, and then went off. That’s it. We could probably assume there was a ramp, but that’s as far as it goes.
"10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals."
Assuming in the first place that they existed in the days of Noah, it could be expected that two of them were brought anyway. One must remember that speciation would start after they departed from the ark.
"11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?"
I don’t. But I believe that faith and reason are permenantly linked and that if the Bible is true, there will be some evidences of it. And low and behold, we’re finding bunches.
"12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that?"
He has not. Only a person who is being “willingly ignorant” would believe that there is any evidence of any of these things at all. Evolution and Special Creation are polar opposites and utterly devoid of mergence or compromise (though some have attempted to do so, more on the "theistic evolution" and other theories at a later time on this site).
"Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?"
He has not. Genesis matches several characteristics which match historical documents, and does not use in any way any metaphorical or poetic language.
I honestly don’t know what kind of christians or creationists couldn’t answer these questions, they're not really that hard. Try again, stumper.
